On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 16:33 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:19:04PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > index 388ace315f32..d6e357378732 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > @@ -615,10 +615,12 @@ static inline void rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > static inline void rcu_read_lock_bh(void)
> > {
> > local_bh_disable();
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> > __acquire(RCU_BH);
> > rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(),
> > "rcu_read_lock_bh() used illegally while idle");
> > +#endif
>
> Any chance of this using "if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL))"?
> We should be OK providing a do-nothing __maybe_unused rcu_bh_lock_map
> for lockdep-enabled -rt kernels, right?
OK.
> > @@ -185,8 +189,10 @@ void __local_bh_enable_ip(unsigned long ip,
> > > > unsigned int cnt)
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(count < 0);
> > local_irq_enable();
> >
> > - if (!in_atomic())
> > + if (!in_atomic()) {
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > local_unlock(bh_lock);
> > + }
>
> The return from in_atomic() is guaranteed to be the same at
> local_bh_enable() time as was at the call to the corresponding
> local_bh_disable()?
That's an existing requirement on RT (which rcutorture currently violates)
due to bh_lock.
> I could have sworn that I ran afoul of this last year. Might these
> added rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() calls need to check for
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL?
This code is already under a PREEMPT_RT_FULL ifdef.
-Scott
