From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:03:58 +0200
Message-ID: <20160919090358.GU5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1474041765-17818-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
 <20160916172621.GA1426@katana>
 <deaa654a-9afc-eae6-6bc8-75f2c3960970@axentia.se>
 <20160916175842.GD1426@katana>
 <587cdb60-d7fe-3ab2-b635-02c5072e102e@axentia.se>
 <CAMpxmJUX8wszxhkoOyuqPeC8xgBjLXFRSWDSa0cOrJ92dUYX1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMpxmJX3_ec44Z0UVTNqSDjmNq+Oe3sk+szLE-Nj7X4pztbywQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2f7d572c-59e0-f584-9748-48a1a45a1a50@axentia.se>
 <20160919081413.GR5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <88940f9a-79bf-6c88-8e1d-f76f32dda04a@axentia.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <88940f9a-79bf-6c88-8e1d-f76f32dda04a@axentia.se>
Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>, Yong Li <yong.b.li@intel.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>, linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:48:44AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2016-09-19 10:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:01:49AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> Or, do what the i2c-mux code is doing and use an rt_mutex instead
> >> of an ordinary mutex. That way you are very sure to not get any
> >> lockdep splat ... at all. Ok, sorry, that was not a serious
> >> suggestion, but it would be a tad bit simpler to implement...
> > 
> > So I find it weird that people use rt_mutex as a locking primitive,
> > since its only that one lock that then does PI and all the other locks
> > that are related still create inversions.
> 
> So, someone took the bait :-)
> 
> Yes, I too find it weird, and would like to get rid of it. It's just
> odd. It's been some years since the start though, waaay before me
> entering kernel space.
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=194684e596af4b
> 
> 
> But it's hard to argue with the numbers given in the discussion:
> 
> http://linux-i2c.vger.kernel.narkive.com/nokldJcc/patch-1-1-i2c-prevent-priority-inversion-on-top-of-bus-lock
> 
> Has anything happened to the regular mutex implementation that might
> have changed the picture? *crosses fingers*

Use the -RT kernel and all locks will end up as rt_mutex. Avoiding
inversion on one specific lock, while there are then a gazillion other
than can equally create inversion doesn't make sense to me.