[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55646C50.7070106@bmw-carit.de>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:51:28 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lockdep warning: threadirqs and preemptoff tracer
On 05/26/2015 02:32 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de> wrote:
>> On 05/20/2015 10:46 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> I starred for a while at the code and saw the comment in
>> __local_bh_disable_ip():
>>
>> /*
>> * The preempt tracer hooks into preempt_count_add and will break
>> * lockdep because it calls back into lockdep after SOFTIRQ_OFFSET
>> * is set and before current->softirq_enabled is cleared.
>> * We must manually increment preempt_count here and manually
>> * call the trace_preempt_off later.
>> */
>>
>> >From this I figured this might be the same problem just in the
>> enable path. The below patch made the lockdep warning disappear.
>> Though I am not sure what I breaking with this.
>
> Don't you want to modify __local_bh_enable_ip()?
__do_softirq() calls __local_bh_disable_ip() and __local_bh_enable() and
not __local_bh_enable_ip(). I have no clue why this is done this way.
Need to look into the history.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists