Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-29548-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
	Ilpo =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v1 2/2] serial/8250: Avoid getting lock in RT atomic context
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:18:54 -0300
Message-ID: <ZahgXuNmysj8Ue7U@LeoBras>
In-Reply-To: <87r0ifful4.ffs@tglx>
References: <20240116073701.2356171-1-leobras@redhat.com> <20240116073701.2356171-3-leobras@redhat.com> <87r0ifful4.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:44:55PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16 2024 at 04:37, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > With PREEMPT_RT enabled, a spin_lock_irqsave() becomes a possibly sleeping
> > spin_lock(), without preempt_disable() or irq_disable().
> >
> > This allows a task T1 to get preempted or interrupted while holding the
> > port->lock. If the preempting task T2 need the lock, spin_lock() code
> > will schedule T1 back until it finishes using the lock, and then go back to
> > T2.
> >
> > There is an issue if a T1 holding port->lock is interrupted by an
> > IRQ, and this IRQ handler needs to get port->lock for writting (printk):
> > spin_lock() code will try to reschedule the interrupt handler, which is in
> > atomic context, causing a BUG() for trying to reschedule/sleep in atomic
> > context.
> >
> > So for the case (PREEMPT_RT && in_atomic()) try to get the lock, and if it
> > fails proceed anyway, just like it's done in oops_in_progress case.
> 
> That's just blantantly wrong. The locks are really only to be ignored
> for the oops case, but not for regular printk.

I agree, but the alternative was to have a BUG() due to scheduling in 
atomic context. This would only ignore the lock if it was already taken 
anyway.

That being said, I agree it is not the best solution for the issue, and 
just sent this in the RFC in order to get feedback on what could be done.

> 
> I assume that this is not against the latest RT kernel as that should
> not have that problem at all.

I am based on torvalds/linux at master branch, so maybe I am missing some 
RT-specific patches. Which tree do you recommend me testing?

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 

Thank you!
Leo