From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.34-rc1: rcu lockdep bug?
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:41:03 +0100
Message-ID: <1268649663.3154.9.camel@edumazet-laptop>
References: <20100311134556.GA6344@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1268392276.3141.4.camel@edumazet-laptop>
	 <2375c9f91003120511j6f33592cl12cb2617a27351ec@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1268401058.3141.9.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20100313053356.GC3704@hack>
	 <20100313215838.GB6805@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100315010802.GB2735@hack>
	 <2375c9f91003142010g61841666iad53c24f39036acf@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2375c9f91003150239m1abc765bh59eb51c948eed592@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1268647460.3154.1.camel@edumazet-laptop>
	 <2375c9f91003150312u37dfd70fk55a4b8820e13590e@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, peterz@infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico?= Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <2375c9f91003150312u37dfd70fk55a4b8820e13590e@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Le lundi 15 mars 2010 =C3=A0 18:12 +0800, Am=C3=A9rico Wang a =C3=A9cri=
t :
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com=
> wrote:
> > Le lundi 15 mars 2010 =C3=A0 17:39 +0800, Am=C3=A9rico Wang a =C3=A9=
crit :
> >
> >>
> >> Ok, I think I found what lockdep really complains about, it is tha=
t we took
> >> spin_lock in netpoll_poll_lock() which is in hardirq-enabled envir=
onment,
> >> later, we took another spin_lock with spin_lock_irqsave() in netpo=
ll_rx(),
> >> so lockdep thought we broke the locking rule.
> >>
> >> I don't know why netpoll_rx() needs irq disabled, it looks like th=
at no one
> >> takes rx_lock in hardirq context. So can we use spin_lock(&rx_lock=
)
> >> instead? Or am I missing something here? Eric? David?
> >
> > I am a bit lost.
> >
> > Could you give the complete picture, because I cannot find it in my
> > netdev archives.
> >
>=20
> Sure, sorry for this.
>=20
> Here is the whole thread:
>=20
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/11/100

OK thanks

netpoll_rx() can be called from hard irqs (netif_rx()), so rx_lock
definitly needs irq care.

netpoll_poll_lock() does take a spinlock with irq enabled, but its not
rx_lock, its napi->poll_lock.

I dont see what could be the problem, is it reproductible with vanilla
kernel ?