[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <446AE5F2-39E0-46B6-8E0B-207E003DBF20@google.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:10:59 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Glexiner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage
On August 7, 2018 9:49:54 AM EDT, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:33:35 -0700
>Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, also one more thing I noticed in your patch,
>> lockdep_hardirqs_off needs to be called before all other probes but
>> you're calling it after. This is why I registered it with INT_MAX:
>>
>> register_trace_prio_irq_disable(lockdep_hardirqs_off, NULL, INT_MAX);
>>
>> Without it you may get annotation warnings. Thanks,
>
>Interesting. I was following the old way where we called the tracing
>code before calling the lockdep code (all hard coded and not from
>trace events). Is this have something to do with calling the code from
>a tracepoint?
>
>Do you have an example that could trigger the warning?
>
I remember the warnings but can't remember now how I triggered them. I think I saw them with the irqsoff tracer or irq trace events running, with lockdep turned on.
Also an irq disable probe that does a lockdep assert that irqs are disabled could trigger it?
thanks,
- Joel
>-- Steve
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists