lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 01/10] module: Sanitize RCU usage and locking

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:32:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > +static void module_assert_mutex_or_preempt(void)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > > + int rcu_held = rcu_read_lock_sched_held();
> > > + int mutex_held = 1;
> > > +
> > > + if (debug_locks)
> > > + mutex_held = lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex);
> > > +
> > > + WARN_ON(!rcu_held && !mutex_held);
> >
> > So because rcu_read_lock_sched_held() also depends on debug_locks
> > being on to be fully correct, shouldn't the warning also be within the
> > debug_locks condition?
>
> Ah, see how mutex_held will be true for !debug_locks and therefore we'll
> not trigger the warn.
>
> Maybe not the best way to code that though.
>
> Something like so perhaps:
>
> static void module_assert_mutex_or_preempt(void)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> if (!debug_locks)
> return;
>
> WARN_ON(!rcu_held_lock_sched_held() &&
> !lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex));
> #endif

Yeah. I'd also make it:

if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
return;

or such.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-13 19:01    [W:0.054 / U:4.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site