Re: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"
From: Mike Galbraith <hidden>
Date: 2015-03-19 08:17:16
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:35 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:35:43 -0400 Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
3.10.70-rt75-rc2 stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------Here's the missing change log for this revert. I'll go back and add it in: An issue arisen that if a rt_mutex (spin_lock converted to a mutex in PREEMPT_RT) is taken in hard interrupt context, it could cause a false deadlock detection and trigger a BUG_ON() from the return value of task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() in rt_spin_lock_slowlock(). The problem is this: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- spin_lock(A) spin_lock(A) [ blocks, but spins as owner on CPU 0 is running ] <interrupt> spin_trylock(B) [ succeeds ] spin_lock(B) <blocks> Now the deadlock detection triggers and follows the locking: Task X (on CPU0) blocked on spinlock B owned by task Y on CPU1 (via the interrupt taking it with a try lock) The owner of B (Y) is blocked on spin_lock A (still spinning) A is owned by task X (self). DEADLOCK detected! BUG_ON triggered. This was caused by the code to try to not raise softirq unconditionally to allow NO_HZ_FULL to work. Unfortunately, reverting that patch causes NO_HZ_FULL to break again, but that's still better than triggering a BUG_ON().
(aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok? -Mike