Re: [PATCH v2] kmemleak: Turn kmemleak_lock to raw spinlock on RT

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:06:11PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 12:02:55 [+0100], Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > is this an RT-only problem? Because mainline should not allow read->read
> > > locking or read->write locking for reader-writer locks. If this only
> > > happens on v4.18 and not on v4.19 then something must have fixed it.
> > 
> > Probably misunderstanding, but I'd say that read->read locking is "the
> > norm"...?
> > 
> > If you don't use qrwlock, readers are also "recursive", in part.,
> > 
> >   P0			P1
> >   read_lock(l)
> > 			write_lock(l)
> >   read_lock(l)
> > 
> > won't block P0 on the second read_lock().  (qrwlock somehow complicate
> > the analysis; IIUC, they are recursive if and only if in_interrupt().).
> 
> ehm, peterz, is that true? My memory on that is that all readers will
> block if there is a writer pending.

Since qrwlock is the more strict, all users should use its semantics.
Just like we cannot 'rely' on the unfairness of some lock
implementations.