lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Possible IRQ lock inversion from 2.6.29-Linus-03321-gbe0ea69 (2.6.29-git)
Date
On Friday 27 March 2009, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:54:35 +0100
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I remember looking a bit more closely into the issue and not seeing
> > the problem with the locking (though I could have missed something):
> >
> > file->f_lock is never taken in hard-irq or soft-irq context and in
> > the only place where file->f_lock is taken with fasync_lock hold we're
> > protected against IRQs by write_lock_irq().
>
> I do think that the warning is spurious at this time.
>
> > [ Despite not being a problem now I think that changing spin_[un]lock()
> > to *_irq() variants for file->f_lock could be (given that it really
> > fixes the warning) more viable long-term solution than adding special
> > lockdep handling (well, it could be that one day file->f_lock is used
> > in soft-irq context and then the irq lock inversion issue will become
> > a real one) and shouldn't incurr performance penalty since we hold it
> > only for a very brief time. ]
>
> We could do that. When I made the change I'd verified that there were
> no users in IRQ context, and I couldn't really see why there should
> be. I'd rather avoid adding all those IRQ disables if I can avoid it.
>
> How about, instead, just reversing the order of lock acquisition in
> fasync_helper()? That would increase the hold time for f_lock, but I
> have a hard time seeing that being a real problem. I'm running with
> the following now; all seems well. I'll send it up in a bit if nobody
> gripes.

This is even better and works just fine here.

Thanks,
Bart


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-28 14:51    [W:0.085 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site