On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:03:58 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@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.
The error is that in -rt, you called a mutex and not a spin lock while
atomic.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
