On Tue, Jan 16 2024 at 04:37, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> With PREEMPT_RT enabled, a spin_lock_irqsave() becomes a possibly sleeping
> spin_lock(), without preempt_disable() or irq_disable().
>
> This allows a task T1 to get preempted or interrupted while holding the
> port->lock. If the preempting task T2 need the lock, spin_lock() code
> will schedule T1 back until it finishes using the lock, and then go back to
> T2.
>
> There is an issue if a T1 holding port->lock is interrupted by an
> IRQ, and this IRQ handler needs to get port->lock for writting (printk):
> spin_lock() code will try to reschedule the interrupt handler, which is in
> atomic context, causing a BUG() for trying to reschedule/sleep in atomic
> context.
>
> So for the case (PREEMPT_RT && in_atomic()) try to get the lock, and if it
> fails proceed anyway, just like it's done in oops_in_progress case.
That's just blantantly wrong. The locks are really only to be ignored
for the oops case, but not for regular printk.
I assume that this is not against the latest RT kernel as that should
not have that problem at all.
Thanks,
tglx
