From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: Mutexes are unusable from softirq context, so use rwsem instead
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:10:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191210191009.GA11457@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <157599917879.6327.69195741890962065.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 05:32:58PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> rxrpc_call::user_mutex is of type struct mutex, but it's required to start
> off locked on an incoming call as it is being set up in softirq context to
> prevent sendmsg and recvmsg interfering with it until it is ready. It is
> then unlocked in rxrpc_input_packet() to make the call live.
>
> Unfortunately, commit a0855d24fc22d49cdc25664fb224caee16998683
> ("locking/mutex: Complain upon mutex API misuse in IRQ contexts") causes
> big warnings to be splashed in dmesg for each a new call that comes in from
> the server.
>
> It *seems* like it should be okay, since the accept path trylocks the mutex
> when no one else can see it and drops the mutex before it leaves softirq
> context.
>
> Fix this by switching to using an rw_semaphore instead as that is permitted
> to be used in softirq context.
This really has the very same problem. It just avoids the WARN. We do PI
boosting for rwsem write side identical to what we do for mutexes.
I would rather we revert David's patch for now and more carefully
consider what to do about this.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-10 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-10 17:32 [PATCH] rxrpc: Mutexes are unusable from softirq context, so use rwsem instead David Howells
2019-12-10 19:10 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-12-10 19:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-10 22:05 ` [PATCH] Revert "locking/mutex: Complain upon mutex API misuse in IRQ contexts" Davidlohr Bueso
2019-12-10 22:32 ` David Howells
2019-12-10 23:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-12-10 23:35 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191210191009.GA11457@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox