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, 11 Dec 2019 00:26:55 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        will@kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "locking/mutex: Complain upon mutex API misuse in
 IRQ contexts"
Message-ID: <20191210232655.GA80975@gmail.com>
References: <20191210193011.GA11802@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191210220523.28540-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191210220523.28540-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:

> This ended up causing some noise in places such as rxrpc running in softirq.
> 
> The warning is misleading in this case as the mutex trylock and unlock
> operations are done within the same context; and therefore we need not
> worry about the PI-boosting issues that comes along with no single-owner
> lock guarantees.
> 
> While we don't want to support this in mutexes, there is no way out of
> this yet; so lets get rid of the WARNs for now, as it is only fair to
> code that has historically relied on non-preemptible softirq guarantees.
> In addition, changing the lock type is also unviable: exclusive rwsems
> have the same issue (just not the WARN_ON) and counting semaphores
> would introduce a performance hit as mutexes are a lot more optimized.
> 
> This reverts commit 5d4ebaa87329ef226e74e52c80ac1c62e4948987.

Not sure where that SHA1 came from (it's not in Linus's tree), the right 
one is:

    a0855d24fc22: ("locking/mutex: Complain upon mutex API misuse in IRQ contexts")

I've fixed the changelog accordingly.

Thanks,

	Ingo