Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:27:39 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v2 2/3] sched: migrate_enable: Use sleeping_lock to
 indicate involuntary sleep
Message-ID: <20190828092739.46mrffvzjv6v3de5@linutronix.de>
References: <20190821231906.4224-1-swood@redhat.com>
 <20190821231906.4224-3-swood@redhat.com>
 <20190823162024.47t7br6ecfclzgkw@linutronix.de>
 <433936e4c720e6b81f9b297fefaa592fd8a961ad.camel@redhat.com>
 <20190824031014.GB2731@google.com>
 <20190826152523.dcjbsgyyir4zjdol@linutronix.de>
 <20190826162945.GE28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190827092333.jp3darw7teyyw67g@linutronix.de>
 <20190827155306.GF26530@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190827155306.GF26530@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-08-27 08:53:06 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On the other hand, within a PREEMPT=n kernel, the call to schedule()
> > > would split even an rcu_read_lock() critical section.  Which is why I
> > > asked earlier if sleeping_lock_inc() and sleeping_lock_dec() are no-ops
> > > in !PREEMPT_RT_BASE kernels.  We would after all want the usual lockdep
> > > complaints in that case.
> > 
> > sleeping_lock_inc() +dec() is only RT specific. It is part of RT's
> > spin_lock() implementation and used by RCU (rcu_note_context_switch())
> > to not complain if invoked within a critical section.
> 
> Then this is being called when we have something like this, correct?
> 
> 	DEFINE_SPINLOCK(mylock); // As opposed to DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK().
> 
> 	...
> 
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	do_something();
> 	spin_lock(&mylock); // Can block in -rt, thus needs sleeping_lock_inc()
> 	...
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> Without sleeping_lock_inc(), lockdep would complain about a voluntary
> schedule within an RCU read-side critical section.  But in -rt, voluntary
> schedules due to sleeping on a "spinlock" are OK.
> 
> Am I understanding this correctly?

Everything perfect except that it is not lockdep complaining but the
WARN_ON_ONCE() in rcu_note_context_switch().

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

Sebastian