From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754076AbbKBRJI (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:09:08 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:35196 "EHLO mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751633AbbKBRJF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:09:05 -0500 Message-ID: <563798AF.7000505@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:09:03 -0800 From: "Shi, Yang" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner , Alexei Starovoitov , Steven Rostedt CC: ast@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: convert hashtab lock to raw lock References: <1446243386-26582-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <20151031000356.GA28070@Alexeis-MacBook-Pro.local> <20151031094736.494427d7@grimm.local.home> <20151101225620.GA28272@Alexeis-MacBook-Pro.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/2/2015 12:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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 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:[] 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 Steven and Thomas for your elaboration and comment. Yang > > Thanks, > > tglx >