Re: [PATCH RT v2 2/3] sched: migrate_enable: Use sleeping_lock to indicate involuntary sleep
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Date: Wed Aug 28 2019 - 05:27:45 EST
On 2019-08-27 08:53:06 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On the other hand, within a PREEMPT=n kernel, the call to schedule()
> > > would split even an rcu_read_lock() critical section. Which is why I
> > > asked earlier if sleeping_lock_inc() and sleeping_lock_dec() are no-ops
> > > in !PREEMPT_RT_BASE kernels. We would after all want the usual lockdep
> > > complaints in that case.
> > sleeping_lock_inc() +dec() is only RT specific. It is part of RT's
> > spin_lock() implementation and used by RCU (rcu_note_context_switch())
> > to not complain if invoked within a critical section.
> Then this is being called when we have something like this, correct?
> DEFINE_SPINLOCK(mylock); // As opposed to DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK().
> spin_lock(&mylock); // Can block in -rt, thus needs sleeping_lock_inc()
> Without sleeping_lock_inc(), lockdep would complain about a voluntary
> schedule within an RCU read-side critical section. But in -rt, voluntary
> schedules due to sleeping on a "spinlock" are OK.
> Am I understanding this correctly?
Everything perfect except that it is not lockdep complaining but the
WARN_ON_ONCE() in rcu_note_context_switch().
> Thanx, Paul