Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
list_bl: Make list head locking RT safe
As per changes in include/linux/jbd_common.h for avoiding the bit_spin_locks on RT ("fs: jbd/jbd2: Make state lock and journal head lock rt safe") we do the same thing here. We use the non atomic __set_bit and __clear_bit inside the scope of the lock to preserve the ability of the existing LIST_DEBUG code to use the zero'th bit in the sanity checks. As a bit spinlock, we had no lockdep visibility into the usage of the list head locking. Now, if we were to implement it as a standard non-raw spinlock, we would see: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rtmutex.c:658 in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 122, name: udevd 5 locks held by udevd/122: #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#7/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811967e8>] lock_rename+0xe8/0xf0 #1: (rename_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811a277c>] d_move+0x2c/0x60 #2: (&dentry->d_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811a0763>] dentry_lock_for_move+0xf3/0x130 #3: (&dentry->d_lock/2){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811a0734>] dentry_lock_for_move+0xc4/0x130 #4: (&dentry->d_lock/3){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811a0747>] dentry_lock_for_move+0xd7/0x130 Pid: 122, comm: udevd Not tainted 3.4.47-rt62 #7 Call Trace: [<ffffffff810b9624>] __might_sleep+0x134/0x1f0 [<ffffffff817a24d4>] rt_spin_lock+0x24/0x60 [<ffffffff811a0c4c>] __d_shrink+0x5c/0xa0 [<ffffffff811a1b2d>] __d_drop+0x1d/0x40 [<ffffffff811a24be>] __d_move+0x8e/0x320 [<ffffffff811a278e>] d_move+0x3e/0x60 [<ffffffff81199598>] vfs_rename+0x198/0x4c0 [<ffffffff8119b093>] sys_renameat+0x213/0x240 [<ffffffff817a2de5>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x35/0x60 [<ffffffff8107781c>] ? do_page_fault+0x1ec/0x4b0 [<ffffffff817a32ca>] ? retint_swapgs+0xe/0x13 [<ffffffff813eb0e6>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f [<ffffffff8119b0db>] sys_rename+0x1b/0x20 [<ffffffff817a3b96>] system_call_fastpath+0x1a/0x1f Since we are only taking the lock during short lived list operations, lets assume for now that it being raw won't be a significant latency concern. Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>
- Loading branch information