[PATCH tip/core/rcu 7/9] rcu: More info about potential deadlocks with rcu_read_unlock()

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

The comment above rcu_read_unlock() explains the potential deadlock
if the caller holds one of the locks taken by rt_mutex_unlock() paths,
but it is not clear from this documentation that any lock which can
be taken from interrupt can lead to deadlock as well and we need to
take rt_mutex_lock() into account too.

The problem is that rt_mutex_lock() takes wait_lock without disabling
irqs, and thus an interrupt taking some LOCK can obviously race with
rcu_read_unlock_special() called with the same LOCK held.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 include/linux/rcupdate.h | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 36ea3ba5c516..ae6942a84a0d 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -887,7 +887,9 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
  * Unfortunately, this function acquires the scheduler's runqueue and
  * priority-inheritance spinlocks.  This means that deadlock could result
  * if the caller of rcu_read_unlock() already holds one of these locks or
- * any lock that is ever acquired while holding them.
+ * any lock that is ever acquired while holding them; or any lock which
+ * can be taken from interrupt context because rcu_boost()->rt_mutex_lock()
+ * does not disable irqs while taking ->wait_lock.
  *
  * That said, RCU readers are never priority boosted unless they were
  * preempted.  Therefore, one way to avoid deadlock is to make sure
-- 
1.8.1.5

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/