lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 07/25] lockdep: Add preemption disabled assertion API
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:13:50AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:52:31AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > +#define lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled() \
> > > +do { \
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(debug_locks && !this_cpu_read(hardirqs_enabled)); \
> > > +} while (0)
> > >
> >
> > Given that lockdep_off() is defined at lockdep.c as:
> >
> > void lockdep_off(void)
> > {
> > current->lockdep_recursion += LOCKDEP_OFF;
> > }
> >
> > This would imply that all of the macros:
> >
> > - lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled()
> > - lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled()
> > - lockdep_assert_in_irq()
> > - lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled()
> > - lockdep_assert_preemption_enabled()
> >
> > will do the lockdep checks *even if* lockdep_off() was called.
> >
> > This doesn't sound right. Even if all of the above macros call sites
> > didn't care about lockdep_off()/on(), it is semantically incoherent.
>
> lockdep_off() is an abomination and really should not exist.
>
> That dm-cache-target.c thing, for example, is atrocious shite that will
> explode on -rt. Whoever wrote that needs a 'medal'.
>
> People using it deserve all the pain they get.
>
> Also; IRQ state _should_ be tracked irrespective of tracking lock
> dependencies -- I see that that currently isn't entirely the case, lemme
> go fix that.
>

Since the lockdep/x86 series:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200529212728.795169701@infradead.org
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200529213550.683440625@infradead.org

are pending and quite big, I'll drop patch #7 and patch #8 from this
series, and post a seqlock v2.

This way, this seqlock series can move forward.

Patches #7 and #8 are an "add-on" debugging feature anyway. They're
quite important of course, evident by the number of buggy call sites
they've found, but they don't affect the rest of the seqlock series in
any way.

Once the lockdep/x86 series above get merged, I can easily rebase and
post paches #7 and #8 again.

Thanks a lot,

--
Ahmed S. Darwish
Linutronix GmbH

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-03 17:30    [W:0.194 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site