From: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v3 5/5] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:32:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6b87f7acde58fcf0c172622eb9acef43a113ec4.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190917145035.l6egzthsdzp7aipe@linutronix.de>
On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 16:50 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-09-17 09:36:22 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On non-RT you can (but should not) use the counter part of the
> > > function
> > > in random order like:
> > > local_bh_disable();
> > > local_irq_disable();
> > > local_bh_enable();
> > > local_irq_enable();
> >
> > Actually even non-RT will assert if you do local_bh_enable() with IRQs
> > disabled -- but the other combinations do work, and are used some places
> > via
> > spinlocks. If they are used via direct calls to preempt_disable() or
> > local_irq_disable() (or via raw spinlocks), then that will not go away
> > on RT
> > and we'll have a problem.
>
> lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled() is a nop with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=N and
> RT breaks either way.
Right, I meant a non-RT kernel with debug checks enabled.
> > > Since you _can_ use it in random order Paul wants to test that the
> > > random use of those function does not break RCU in any way. Since they
> > > can not be used on RT in random order it has been agreed that we keep
> > > the test for !RT but disable it on RT.
> >
> > For now, yes. Long term it would be good to keep track of when
> > preemption/irqs would be disabled on RT, even when running a non-RT
> > debug
> > kernel, and assert when bad things are done with it (assuming an RT-
> > capable
> > arch). Besides detecting these fairly unusual patterns, it could also
> > detect earlier the much more common problem of nesting a non-raw
> > spinlock
> > inside a raw spinlock or other RT-atomic context.
>
> you will be surprised but we have patches for that. We need first get
> rid of other "false positives" before plugging this in.
Nice! Are the "false positives" real issues from components that are
currently blacklisted on RT, or something different?
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-17 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-11 16:57 [PATCH RT v3 0/5] RCU fixes Scott Wood
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 1/5] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs Scott Wood
2019-09-12 22:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-17 7:44 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 14:06 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-17 14:42 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 16:12 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-23 16:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 2/5] sched: Rename sleeping_lock to rt_invol_sleep Scott Wood
2019-09-17 7:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 3/5] sched: migrate_dis/enable: Use rt_invol_sleep Scott Wood
2019-09-17 7:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 14:06 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-23 16:59 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-23 17:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-24 11:21 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-24 13:53 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-24 15:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-24 15:47 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-24 16:05 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-24 16:35 ` Scott Wood
2019-10-04 16:45 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 4/5] rcu: Disable use_softirq on PREEMPT_RT Scott Wood
2019-09-12 21:38 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-12 22:19 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-17 9:31 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 14:08 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-11 16:57 ` [PATCH RT v3 5/5] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT Scott Wood
2019-09-12 22:17 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-09-16 16:55 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-17 10:07 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 14:36 ` Scott Wood
2019-09-17 14:50 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-09-17 16:32 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2019-09-23 16:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b6b87f7acde58fcf0c172622eb9acef43a113ec4.camel@redhat.com \
--to=swood@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).