On 02/11/2013 04:18 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 02/11/2013 01:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2013 04:09 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On 02/06/2013 02:30 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>>>> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> With the locking cleanup in place (from "OF: Fixup resursive
>>>>> locking code paths"), we can now do the conversion from the
>>>>> rw_lock to a raw spinlock as required for preempt-rt.
>>>>>
>>>>> The previous cleanup and this conversion were originally
>>>>> separate since they predated when mainline got raw spinlock (in
>>>>> commit c2f21ce2e31286a "locking: Implement new raw_spinlock").
>>>>>
>>>>> So, at that point in time, the cleanup was considered plausible
>>>>> for mainline, but not this conversion. In any case, we've kept
>>>>> them separate as it makes for easier review and better bisection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> [PG: taken from preempt-rt, update subject & add a commit log]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> [v2: recent commit e81b329 ("powerpc+of: Add /proc device tree
>>>>> updating to of node add/remove") added two more instances of
>>>>> write_unlock that also needed converting to raw_spin_unlock.
>>>>> Retested (boot) on sbc8548, defconfig builds on arm/sparc; no
>>>>> new warnings observed.]
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.c | 4 +-
>>>>> drivers/of/base.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>>>> include/linux/of.h | 2 +-
>>>>> 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Applied.
>>>
>>> This commit is present in next-20130211, and causes a boot failure
>>> (hang) early while booting on Tegra. Reverting just this one commit
>>> solves the issue.
>>>
>>> I'll see if I can track down where the issue is. Given the commit
>>> description, I assume there's some new recursive lock issue that snuck
>>> in between the previous fix for them and this commit? Any hints welcome.
>>>
>>> One thing I wonder looking at the patch: Most paths use
>>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave() but a few use just raw_spin_lock(). I wonder how
>>> that decision was made?
>>
>> I found the problem. of_get_next_available_child ->
>> of_device_is_available -> of_get_property -> of_get_property. An
>> unlocked version of of_device_is_available is needed here.
>
> Oops, I had testbooted on a single core machine which would mask the
> issue. I've crafted a fix and am posting it for review before I apply
> it.
>
I'm in the process of applying Stephen's fix.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
