On 07/24/2014 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra<peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So going by the nifty picture rostedt made:
[ 61.454336] CPU0 CPU1
[ 61.454336] ---- ----
[ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
[ 61.454336] local_irq_disable();
[ 61.454336] lock(tasklist_lock);
[ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
[ 61.454336]<Interrupt>
[ 61.454336] lock(tasklist_lock);
So this *should* be fine. It always has been in the past, and it was
certainly the *intention* that it should continue to work with
qrwlock, even in the presense of pending writers on other cpu's.
The qrwlock rules are that a read-lock in an interrupt is still going
to be unfair and succeed if there are other readers.
Ah, indeed. Should have checked :/
So it sounds to me like the new lockdep rules in tip/master are too
strict and are throwing a false positive.
Right. Waiman can you have a look?
Yes, I think I may have a solution for that.
Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep patch
to see if it can fix the problem?
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index d24e433..507a8ce 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -3595,6 +3595,12 @@ void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock,
unsigned int
raw_local_irq_save(flags);
check_flags(flags);
+ /*
+ * An interrupt recursive read in interrupt context can be
considered
+ * to be the same as a recursive read from checking perspective.
+ */
+ if ((read == 3) && in_interrupt())
+ read = 2;
current->lockdep_recursion = 1;
trace_lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check,
nest_lock, ip);
__lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
