Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753242AbbKAW4X (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:56:23 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:36684 "EHLO mail-pa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752741AbbKAW4S (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:56:18 -0500 Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:56:22 -0800 From: Alexei Starovoitov To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Yang Shi , 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 Message-ID: <20151101225620.GA28272@Alexeis-MacBook-Pro.local> References: <1446243386-26582-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <20151031000356.GA28070@Alexeis-MacBook-Pro.local> <20151031094736.494427d7@grimm.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151031094736.494427d7@grimm.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1687 Lines: 41 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. -- 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/