Re: [Question] Detecting Sleep-in-Atomic Context in PREEMPT_RT via RV (Runtime Verification) monitor rtapp:sleep

[Yunseong Kim]

Thanks you Nam, for pointing that out!

On 12/11/25 14:42, Nam Cao wrote:
> Yunseong Kim <ysk@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I specifically believe that RV can encompass the role of
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP and even go beyond it.
> >
> > My reasoning is that even if a sleepable (PREEMPT_RT) spinlock is used
> > within an IRQ/preemption disabled section, CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
> > might not trigger a warning if scheduling does not actually occur (i.e.,
> > if there is no contention for that spinlock). This is because the actual
> > debugging check happens in __might_resched().
>
> That's not how it works. See the description of CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP:
>
> "If you say Y here, various routines which may sleep will become very
> noisy if they are called inside atomic sections: when a spinlock is
> held, inside an rcu read side critical section, inside preempt disabled
> sections, inside an interrupt, etc..."

I am currently considering how to model this to cover cases that go 
beyond what CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP covers.

My specific concern is about custom functions where might_sleep() might 
be missing. In such cases, if the code hits a fast path (no scheduling),
CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP won't trigger. I'm wondering if RV can detect
these potential bugs.

> Nam


Thanks a lot for the quick reply!

Best regards,
Yunseong Kim