Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c49c2984-10a3-de8e-c12b-9a3833270a11@suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:38:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v6.3-rc2-rt3
Content-Language: en-US
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
References: <20230314170502.OHw1_FK3@linutronix.de>
 <20230314171231.jwtham4a@linutronix.de>
 <9ee941ae-ae22-f14b-4e69-f81b29bbba4b@arm.com>
 <87ttxiefpd.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <73b5657a-4c47-980a-e709-cd6a880c067c@suse.cz>
 <87pm86ece2.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <87pm86ece2.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/14/23 17:01, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2023-04-14, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>> Is it perhaps a similar situation to this thread?
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230412124735.GE628377@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> 
> We are dealing with a spin_lock() inside a raw_spin_lock() section. The
> legacy console drivers do this. The fix is the new atomic/threaded
> consoles. For CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT a workaround is implemented so that the
> legacy consoles avoid this. For !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT you can expect
> CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING to cause a splat on that printk().
> 
> Or perhaps that particular printk() in cblist_init_generic() should be
> changed to printk_deferred() as a temporary whack-a-mole
> workaround.

What I meant that in the linked thread a solution seems to be forming in the
form of annotation for lockdep/CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING to make it
aware that on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT the problem it sees is side-stepped so it
shouldn't warn about it on !PREEMPT_RT, and maybe that solution could be
used for the printk issue as well (I admit I didn't check the code, just by
reading your mail it sounded very similar).

> John Ogness