There used to be a BUG_ON(current->pi_blocked_on) in the lock acquisition
functions, but that vanished in one of the rtmutex overhauls.
Bring it back in form of a lockdep assert to catch code paths which take
rtmutex based locks with current::pi_blocked_on != NULL.
Reported-by: Crystal Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230908162254.999499-7-bigeasy@linutronix.de
Have rt_mutex use the rt_mutex specific scheduler helpers to avoid
recursion vs rtlock on the PI state.
[[ peterz: adapted to new names ]]
Reported-by: Crystal Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230908162254.999499-6-bigeasy@linutronix.de
In preparation for converting bit_spin_lock to rwlock in zsmalloc so
that multiple writers of zspages can run at the same time but those
zspages are supposed to be different zspage instance. Thus, it's not
deadlock. This patch adds write_lock_nested to support the case for
LOCKDEP.
[minchan@kernel.org: fix write_lock_nested for RT]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YZfrMTAXV56HFWJY@google.com
[bigeasy@linutronix.de: fixup write_lock_nested() implementation]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211123170134.y6xb7pmpgdn4m3bn@linutronix.de
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211115185909.3949505-8-minchan@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
rt_rwlock_is_contended() has no users. It makes no sense to use it as
rwlock_is_contended() because it is a sleeping lock on RT and
preemption is possible. It reports always != 0 if used by a writer and
even if there is a waiter then the lock might not be handed over if
the current owner has the highest priority.
Remove rt_rwlock_is_contended().
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211129174654.668506-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de
The general rule that rcu_read_lock() held sections cannot voluntary sleep
does apply even on RT kernels. Though the substitution of spin/rw locks on
RT enabled kernels has to be exempt from that rule. On !RT a spin_lock()
can obviously nest inside a RCU read side critical section as the lock
acquisition is not going to block, but on RT this is not longer the case
due to the 'sleeping' spinlock substitution.
The RT patches contained a cheap hack to ignore the RCU nesting depth in
might_sleep() checks, which was a pragmatic but incorrect workaround.
Instead of generally ignoring the RCU nesting depth in __might_sleep() and
__might_resched() checks, pass the rcu_preempt_depth() via the offsets
argument to __might_resched() from spin/read/write_lock() which makes the
checks work correctly even in RCU read side critical sections.
The actual blocking on such a substituted lock within a RCU read side
critical section is already handled correctly in __schedule() by treating
it as a "preemption" of the RCU read side critical section.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210923165358.368305497@linutronix.de
__might_sleep() vs. ___might_sleep() is hard to distinguish. Aside of that
the three underscore variant is exposed to provide a checkpoint for
rescheduling points which are distinct from blocking points.
They are semantically a preemption point which means that scheduling is
state preserving. A real blocking operation, e.g. mutex_lock(), wait*(),
which cannot preserve a task state which is not equal to RUNNING.
While technically blocking on a "sleeping" spinlock in RT enabled kernels
falls into the voluntary scheduling category because it has to wait until
the contended spin/rw lock becomes available, the RT lock substitution code
can semantically be mapped to a voluntary preemption because the RT lock
substitution code and the scheduler are providing mechanisms to preserve
the task state and to take regular non-lock related wakeups into account.
Rename ___might_sleep() to __might_resched() to make the distinction of
these functions clear.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210923165357.928693482@linutronix.de
Add the static and runtime initializer mechanics to support the RT variant
of local_lock, which requires the lock type in the lockdep map to be set
to LD_LOCK_PERCPU.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210815211305.967526724@linutronix.de
Similar to rw_semaphores, on RT the rwlock substitution is not writer fair,
because it's not feasible to have a writer inherit its priority to
multiple readers. Readers blocked on a writer follow the normal rules of
priority inheritance. Like RT spinlocks, RT rwlocks are state preserving
across the slow lock operations (contended case).
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210815211303.882793524@linutronix.de
Provide the actual locking functions which make use of the general and
spinlock specific rtmutex code.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210815211303.826621464@linutronix.de
