On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 09:47:36AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:03:58 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:16:26PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
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
...
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.
I see. The patch makes sense then. Would be good to document this peculiarity of spin_lock.
I'm working on a document.
Thanks,
tglx