lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 13/14] lockdep: Prepare for NMI IRQ state tracking
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:25:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:14:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 May 2020 23:27:41 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > There is no reason not to always, accurately, track IRQ state.
> > >
> > > This change also makes IRQ state tracking ignore lockdep_off().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > @@ -3646,7 +3646,13 @@ static void __trace_hardirqs_on_caller(v
> > > */
> > > void lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare(unsigned long ip)
> > > {
> > > - if (unlikely(!debug_locks || current->lockdep_recursion))
> >
> > Why remove the check for debug_locks? Isn't that there to disable
> > everything at once to prevent more warnings to be printed?
>
> Yeah, maybe. I was thinking we could keep IRQ state running. But you're
> right, if we mess up the IRQ state itself this might generate a wee
> mess.

That is, mostly the IRQ state recovers when we mess up. It's only when
we then trigger more fail that we crash and burn, and that will likely
already give more warnings.

But I can put the debug_locks check back.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-30 00:37    [W:0.073 / U:6.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site