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 09:59:38 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.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: <20190828135938.GA230957@google.com>
References: <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>
 <20190828092739.46mrffvzjv6v3de5@linutronix.de>
 <20190828125426.GO26530@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190828131433.3gi4debho5zc7hgc@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190828131433.3gi4debho5zc7hgc@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:14:33PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-08-28 05:54:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:27:39AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2019-08-27 08:53:06 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Am I understanding this correctly?
> > > 
> > > Everything perfect except that it is not lockdep complaining but the
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE() in rcu_note_context_switch().
> > 
> > This one, right?
> > 
> > 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
> > 
> > Another approach would be to change that WARN_ON_ONCE().  This fix might
> > be too extreme, as it would suppress other issues:
> > 
> > 	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) && !preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
> > 
> > But maybe what is happening under the covers is that preempt is being
> > set when sleeping on a spinlock.  Is that the case?
> 
> I would like to keep that check and that is why we have:
> 
> |   #if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL)
> |         sleeping_l = t->sleeping_lock;
> |   #endif
> |         WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0 && !sleeping_l);
> 
> in -RT and ->sleeping_lock is that counter that is incremented in
> spin_lock(). And the only reason why sleeping_lock_inc() was used in the
> patch was to disable _this_ warning.

Makes sense, Sebastian.

Paul, you meant "!" in front of the IS_ENABLED right in your code snippet right?

The other issue with:
WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) && !preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);

.. could be that, the warning will be disabled for -rt entirely, not just for
sleeping locks. And we probably do want to keep this warning for the cases in
-rt where we are blocking but it is not a sleeping lock. Right?

thanks,

 - Joel