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,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
