From: Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>
To: "Wen Yang" <wen.yang@linux.dev>,
"Thomas Weißschuh" <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>,
"Gabriele Monaco" <gmonaco@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rv/reactors: fix lockdep "Invalid wait context" in rv_react()
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 20:07:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y0fkdojp.fsf@yellow.woof> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <397cea12-e0ba-4cf5-a411-26f44bc17d01@linux.dev>
Wen Yang <wen.yang@linux.dev> writes:
> How about a context-sensitive approach, eg:
>
> NMI/hardirq (interrupts masked, scheduler cannot run):
> Keep LD_WAIT_FREE. The false positive cannot arise in this path,
> and the original constraint against raw spinlocks is preserved where
> it is meaningful.
>
> task/softirq/PREEMPT_RT irq thread (preemptible):
> Raise to LD_WAIT_SPIN. Raw spinlocks become permitted — as Gabriele
> note, this is a necessary consequence of any fix in this path.
I don't get the point. Unless the lock's type is also context-sensitive,
the reactors still cannot use raw spin locks.
Nam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-09 18:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-15 16:44 [PATCH 0/3] rv/reactors: fix lockdep warning and add KUnit tests wen.yang
2026-06-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 1/3] rv/reactors: fix lockdep "Invalid wait context" in rv_react() wen.yang
2026-06-17 11:12 ` Nam Cao
2026-06-17 15:58 ` Nam Cao
2026-06-23 9:38 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-06 14:02 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-07-08 15:47 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-09 16:37 ` Wen Yang
2026-07-09 18:07 ` Nam Cao [this message]
2026-06-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 2/3] rv/reactors: add KUnit tests for reactor_printk wen.yang
2026-06-23 9:54 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-06 14:41 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-07-09 16:53 ` Wen Yang
2026-06-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 3/3] rv/reactors: add KUnit tests for reactor_panic wen.yang
2026-06-20 23:30 ` XIAO WU
2026-06-21 3:34 ` Wen Yang
2026-07-06 14:48 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-07-06 15:00 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-07-09 16:46 ` Wen Yang
2026-06-17 15:41 ` [PATCH 0/3] rv/reactors: fix lockdep warning and add KUnit tests Gabriele Monaco
2026-06-17 15:52 ` Nam Cao
2026-06-17 16:14 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-06-17 17:11 ` Wen Yang
2026-06-18 15:35 ` Gabriele Monaco
2026-06-20 9:13 ` Wen Yang
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=87y0fkdojp.fsf@yellow.woof \
--to=namcao@linutronix.de \
--cc=gmonaco@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de \
--cc=wen.yang@linux.dev \
/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