On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 09:32:07AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 05:04:45PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2026-03-18 08:43:32 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > Your patch just s/spinlock_t/raw_spinlock_t so we get the locking/ > > > > nesting right. The wakeup problem remains, right? > > > > But looking at the code, there is just srcu_funnel_gp_start(). If its > > > > srcu_schedule_cbs_sdp() / queue_delayed_work() usage is always delayed > > > > then there will be always a timer and never a direct wake up of the > > > > worker. Wouldn't that work? > > > > > > Right, that patch fixes one lockdep problem, but another remains. > > > > What remains? > > With that patch, we no longer have call_srcu() directly acquiring a > non-raw spinlock, but as you say, we still have the wakeup problem. >
I don't think we have a wakeup problem since we use workqueue to defer the wakeup, but maybe I'm missing something here? Regards, Boqun
