Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:47:03 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 07/15] locking/lockdep: Free lock classes that are no longer in use |
| |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:31:11AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 16:28 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 01:29:54PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > +static bool inside_selftest(void) > > > +{ > > > + return current == lockdep_selftest_task_struct; > > > +} > > > +void lockdep_free_key_range(void *start, unsigned long size) > > > +{ > > > + init_data_structures_once(); > > > + > > > + if (inside_selftest()) > > > + lockdep_free_key_range_imm(start, size); > > > + else > > > + lockdep_free_key_range_reg(start, size); > > > } > > > > That is .... unfortunate. The whole reason that whole immediate thing > > works at all is because there is no concurrency what so ever that early, > > right? > > > > Should we maybe key off of: 'system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING' instead? > > Hi Peter, > > I agree that it is unfortunate that the selftests require a different code > path. I have not been able to find any way to avoid this. Using the test > system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING should work and will allow to remove the > lockdep_selftest_task_struct variable. Do you want me to make that change?
I can do it; another approach is simply using the _imm (maybe renamed to _selftest) functions directly, and getting rid of this dynamic choice.
I'm undecided as of yet.
| |