From ff64bb03a125fbd72d36039b864b55387cd9aee7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:07:25 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 053/365] list_bl: Make list head locking RT safe

As per changes in include/linux/jbd_common.h for avoiding the
bit_spin_locks on RT ("fs: jbd/jbd2: Make state lock and journal
head lock rt safe") we do the same thing here.

We use the non atomic __set_bit and __clear_bit inside the scope of
the lock to preserve the ability of the existing LIST_DEBUG code to
use the zero'th bit in the sanity checks.

As a bit spinlock, we had no lockdep visibility into the usage
of the list head locking.  Now, if we were to implement it as a
standard non-raw spinlock, we would see:

BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rtmutex.c:658
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 122, name: udevd
5 locks held by udevd/122:
 #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#7/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811967e8>] lock_rename+0xe8/0xf0
 #1:  (rename_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811a277c>] d_move+0x2c/0x60
 #2:  (&dentry->d_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811a0763>] dentry_lock_for_move+0xf3/0x130
 #3:  (&dentry->d_lock/2){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811a0734>] dentry_lock_for_move+0xc4/0x130
 #4:  (&dentry->d_lock/3){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811a0747>] dentry_lock_for_move+0xd7/0x130
Pid: 122, comm: udevd Not tainted 3.4.47-rt62 #7
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff810b9624>] __might_sleep+0x134/0x1f0
 [<ffffffff817a24d4>] rt_spin_lock+0x24/0x60
 [<ffffffff811a0c4c>] __d_shrink+0x5c/0xa0
 [<ffffffff811a1b2d>] __d_drop+0x1d/0x40
 [<ffffffff811a24be>] __d_move+0x8e/0x320
 [<ffffffff811a278e>] d_move+0x3e/0x60
 [<ffffffff81199598>] vfs_rename+0x198/0x4c0
 [<ffffffff8119b093>] sys_renameat+0x213/0x240
 [<ffffffff817a2de5>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x35/0x60
 [<ffffffff8107781c>] ? do_page_fault+0x1ec/0x4b0
 [<ffffffff817a32ca>] ? retint_swapgs+0xe/0x13
 [<ffffffff813eb0e6>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
 [<ffffffff8119b0db>] sys_rename+0x1b/0x20
 [<ffffffff817a3b96>] system_call_fastpath+0x1a/0x1f

Since we are only taking the lock during short lived list operations,
lets assume for now that it being raw won't be a significant latency
concern.


Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 include/linux/list_bl.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/list_bl.h b/include/linux/list_bl.h
index 8132214e8efd..44f0b5560473 100644
--- a/include/linux/list_bl.h
+++ b/include/linux/list_bl.h
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 #define _LINUX_LIST_BL_H
 
 #include <linux/list.h>
+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
 #include <linux/bit_spinlock.h>
 
 /*
@@ -32,13 +33,22 @@
 
 struct hlist_bl_head {
 	struct hlist_bl_node *first;
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
+	raw_spinlock_t lock;
+#endif
 };
 
 struct hlist_bl_node {
 	struct hlist_bl_node *next, **pprev;
 };
-#define INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD(ptr) \
-	((ptr)->first = NULL)
+
+static inline void INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD(struct hlist_bl_head *h)
+{
+	h->first = NULL;
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
+	raw_spin_lock_init(&h->lock);
+#endif
+}
 
 static inline void INIT_HLIST_BL_NODE(struct hlist_bl_node *h)
 {
@@ -118,12 +128,26 @@ static inline void hlist_bl_del_init(struct hlist_bl_node *n)
 
 static inline void hlist_bl_lock(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
 {
+#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
 	bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)b);
+#else
+	raw_spin_lock(&b->lock);
+#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
+	__set_bit(0, (unsigned long *)b);
+#endif
+#endif
 }
 
 static inline void hlist_bl_unlock(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
 {
+#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
 	__bit_spin_unlock(0, (unsigned long *)b);
+#else
+#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
+	__clear_bit(0, (unsigned long *)b);
+#endif
+	raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
+#endif
 }
 
 static inline bool hlist_bl_is_locked(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
-- 
2.10.2

