On 10/31/2015 11:37 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

On 10/31/2015 02:47 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:03:58 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:16:26PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:

quoted

When running bpf samples on rt kernel, it reports the below warning:

BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 477, name: ping
Preemption disabled at:[<ffff80000017db58>] kprobe_perf_func+0x30/0x228

...

quoted

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
index 83c209d..972b76b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
  struct bpf_htab {
      struct bpf_map map;
      struct hlist_head *buckets;
-    spinlock_t lock;
+    raw_spinlock_t lock;

How do we address such things in general?
I bet there are tons of places around the kernel that
call spin_lock from atomic.
I'd hate to lose the benefits of lockdep of non-raw spin_lock
just to make rt happy.

You wont lose any benefits of lockdep. Lockdep still checks
raw_spin_lock(). The only difference between raw_spin_lock and
spin_lock is that in -rt spin_lock turns into an rt_mutex() and
raw_spin_lock stays a spin lock.

( Btw, Yang, would have been nice if your commit description would have
   already included such info, not only that you convert it, but also why
   it's okay to do so. )

I think Thomas's document will include all the information about rt spin 
lock/raw spin lock, etc.

Alexei & Daniel,

If you think such info is necessary, I definitely could add it into the 
commit log in v2.

quoted

The error is that in -rt, you called a mutex and not a spin lock while
atomic.

You are right, I think this happens due to the preempt_disable() in the
trace_call_bpf() handler. So, I think the patch seems okay. The dep_map
is btw union'ed in the struct spinlock case to the same offset of the
dep_map from raw_spinlock.

It's a bit inconvenient, though, when we add other library code as maps
in future, f.e. things like rhashtable as they would first need to be
converted to raw_spinlock_t as well, but judging from the git log, it
looks like common practice.

Yes, it is common practice for converting sleepable spin lock to raw 
spin lock in -rt to avoid scheduling in atomic context bug.

Thanks,
Yang

Thanks,
Daniel