Re: [PATCH RT v2 2/3] sched: migrate_enable: Use sleeping_lock to indicate involuntary sleep
From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Wed Aug 28 2019 - 09:59:43 EST
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:14:33PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-08-28 05:54:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:27:39AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2019-08-27 08:53:06 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Am I understanding this correctly?
> > >
> > > Everything perfect except that it is not lockdep complaining but the
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE() in rcu_note_context_switch().
> > This one, right?
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
> > Another approach would be to change that WARN_ON_ONCE(). This fix might
> > be too extreme, as it would suppress other issues:
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) && !preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
> > But maybe what is happening under the covers is that preempt is being
> > set when sleeping on a spinlock. Is that the case?
> I would like to keep that check and that is why we have:
> | #if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL)
> | sleeping_l = t->sleeping_lock;
> | #endif
> | WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0 && !sleeping_l);
> in -RT and ->sleeping_lock is that counter that is incremented in
> spin_lock(). And the only reason why sleeping_lock_inc() was used in the
> patch was to disable _this_ warning.
Makes sense, Sebastian.
Paul, you meant "!" in front of the IS_ENABLED right in your code snippet right?
The other issue with:
WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) && !preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
.. could be that, the warning will be disabled for -rt entirely, not just for
sleeping locks. And we probably do want to keep this warning for the cases in
-rt where we are blocking but it is not a sleeping lock. Right?