lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 14/19] sched, lockdep: Annotate ->pi_lock recursion
Date

On 23/10/20 11:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -2617,6 +2618,20 @@ void sched_set_stop_task(int cpu, struct
> sched_setscheduler_nocheck(stop, SCHED_FIFO, &param);
>
> stop->sched_class = &stop_sched_class;
> +
> + /*
> + * The PI code calls rt_mutex_setprio() with ->pi_lock held to
> + * adjust the effective priority of a task. As a result,
> + * rt_mutex_setprio() can trigger (RT) balancing operations,
> + * which can then trigger wakeups of the stop thread to push
> + * around the current task.
> + *
> + * The stop task itself will never be part of the PI-chain, it
> + * never blocks, therefore that ->pi_lock recursion is safe.

Isn't it that the stopper task can only run when preemption is re-enabled,
and the ->pi_lock is dropped before then?

If we were to have an SCA-like function that would kick the stopper but
"forget" to release the pi_lock, then we would very much like lockdep to
complain, right? Or is that something else entirely?

> + * Tell lockdep about this by placing the stop->pi_lock in its
> + * own class.
> + */
> + lockdep_set_class(&stop->pi_lock, &stop_pi_lock);
> }
>
> cpu_rq(cpu)->stop = stop;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-29 17:27    [W:0.416 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site