Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934652AbaGXUie (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:38:34 -0400 Received: from g2t2353.austin.hp.com ([15.217.128.52]:42724 "EHLO g2t2353.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934176AbaGXUid (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:38:33 -0400 Message-ID: <53D16EC4.1000801@hp.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:38:28 -0400 From: Waiman Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Linus Torvalds , Borislav Petkov , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , USB list , "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Linux 3.16-rc6 References: <20140723095327.GA23131@pd.tnic> <20140724064353.GW9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140724084126.GB19239@pd.tnic> <20140724122513.GM19239@pd.tnic> <20140724125814.GX6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140724183643.GM3935@laptop> In-Reply-To: <20140724183643.GM3935@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/24/2014 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> So going by the nifty picture rostedt made: >>> >>> [ 61.454336] CPU0 CPU1 >>> [ 61.454336] ---- ---- >>> [ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); >>> [ 61.454336] local_irq_disable(); >>> [ 61.454336] lock(tasklist_lock); >>> [ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); >>> [ 61.454336] >>> [ 61.454336] lock(tasklist_lock); >> So this *should* be fine. It always has been in the past, and it was >> certainly the *intention* that it should continue to work with >> qrwlock, even in the presense of pending writers on other cpu's. >> >> The qrwlock rules are that a read-lock in an interrupt is still going >> to be unfair and succeed if there are other readers. > Ah, indeed. Should have checked :/ > >> So it sounds to me like the new lockdep rules in tip/master are too >> strict and are throwing a false positive. > Right. Waiman can you have a look? Yes, I think I may have a solution for that. Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep patch to see if it can fix the problem? diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c index d24e433..507a8ce 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c @@ -3595,6 +3595,12 @@ void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int raw_local_irq_save(flags); check_flags(flags); + /* + * An interrupt recursive read in interrupt context can be considered + * to be the same as a recursive read from checking perspective. + */ + if ((read == 3) && in_interrupt()) + read = 2; current->lockdep_recursion = 1; trace_lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, nest_lock, ip); __lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/