Thread (4 messages) 4 messages, 4 authors, 2015-10-09

[v3 PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_break_hook

From: Will Deacon <hidden>
Date: 2015-10-09 09:06:00
Also in: linux-rt-users, lkml

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:55:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:32:51PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
quoted
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 342, name: perf
1 lock held by perf/342:
 #0:  (break_hook_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffc0000851ac>] call_break_hook+0x34/0xd0
irq event stamp: 62224
hardirqs last  enabled at (62223): [<ffffffc00010b7bc>] __call_rcu.constprop.59+0x104/0x270
hardirqs last disabled at (62224): [<ffffffc0000fbe20>] vprintk_emit+0x68/0x640
softirqs last  enabled at (0): [<ffffffc000097928>] copy_process.part.8+0x428/0x17f8
softirqs last disabled at (0): [<          (null)>]           (null)
CPU: 0 PID: 342 Comm: perf Not tainted 4.1.6-rt5 #4
Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
Call trace:
[<ffffffc000089968>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
[<ffffffc000089ab0>] show_stack+0x20/0x30
[<ffffffc0007030d0>] dump_stack+0x7c/0xa0
[<ffffffc0000c878c>] ___might_sleep+0x174/0x260
[<ffffffc000708ac8>] __rt_spin_lock+0x28/0x40
[<ffffffc000708db0>] rt_read_lock+0x60/0x80
[<ffffffc0000851a8>] call_break_hook+0x30/0xd0
[<ffffffc000085a70>] brk_handler+0x30/0x98
[<ffffffc000082248>] do_debug_exception+0x50/0xb8
Exception stack(0xffffffc00514fe30 to 0xffffffc00514ff50)
fe20:                                     00000000 00000000 c1594680 0000007f
fe40: ffffffff ffffffff 92063940 0000007f 0550dcd8 ffffffc0 00000000 00000000
fe60: 0514fe70 ffffffc0 000be1f8 ffffffc0 0514feb0 ffffffc0 0008948c ffffffc0
fe80: 00000004 00000000 0514fed0 ffffffc0 ffffffff ffffffff 9282a948 0000007f
fea0: 00000000 00000000 9282b708 0000007f c1592820 0000007f 00083914 ffffffc0
fec0: 00000000 00000000 00000010 00000000 00000064 00000000 00000001 00000000
fee0: 005101e0 00000000 c1594680 0000007f c1594740 0000007f ffffffd8 ffffff80
ff00: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 c1594770 0000007f c1594770 0000007f
ff20: 00665e10 00000000 7f7f7f7f 7f7f7f7f 01010101 01010101 00000000 00000000
ff40: 928e4cc0 0000007f 91ff11e8 0000007f

call_break_hook is called in atomic context (hard irq disabled), so replace
the sleepable lock to rcu lock, replace relevant list operations to rcu
version and call synchronize_rcu() in unregister_break_hook().

And, replace write lock to spinlock in {un}register_break_hook.

Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <redacted>
Looks more plausible to me.  Does it look OK to you, Steven?
This is already in mainline as a fix, so please shout loudly if you think
it's broken (it looked ok to me and didn't cause any regressions in my
testing).

Will
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help