Re: [PATCH] bpf: convert hashtab lock to raw lock

From: Shi, Yang
Date: Mon Nov 02 2015 - 12:09:13 EST

On 11/2/2015 12:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 09:47:36AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:03:58 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:16:26PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
When running bpf samples on rt kernel, it reports the below warning:

BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 477, name: ping
Preemption disabled at:[<ffff80000017db58>] kprobe_perf_func+0x30/0x228
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
index 83c209d..972b76b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
struct bpf_htab {
struct bpf_map map;
struct hlist_head *buckets;
- spinlock_t lock;
+ raw_spinlock_t lock;

How do we address such things in general?
I bet there are tons of places around the kernel that
call spin_lock from atomic.
I'd hate to lose the benefits of lockdep of non-raw spin_lock
just to make rt happy.

You wont lose any benefits of lockdep. Lockdep still checks
raw_spin_lock(). The only difference between raw_spin_lock and
spin_lock is that in -rt spin_lock turns into an rt_mutex() and
raw_spin_lock stays a spin lock.

I see. The patch makes sense then.
Would be good to document this peculiarity of spin_lock.

I'm working on a document.

Thanks Steven and Thomas for your elaboration and comment.




To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at