[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180907145221.GE482@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 23:52:21 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk/tracing: Do not trace printk_nmi_enter()
On (09/07/18 16:03), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I would even argue that placing printk_nmi_enter() between
> > lockdep_off() and ftrace_nmi_enter() is wrong because if in the future
> > printk_nmi_enter() were to do any ftrace tracing, it wont be caught, as
> > it was by having it before lockdep_off().
> >
> > printk_nmi_enter() should not muck with IRQ state, nor should it do any
> > ftrace tracing. Since ftrace mucks with IRQ state when it gets enabled
> > or disabled, it will screw up lockdep, and lockdep will complain. That
> > way we can use lockdep not being off to catch this bug.
>
> The very bestest solution is to rm -rf printk ;-)
Talented, capable and tremendously clever people had spent decades on
making printk what it is today. I feel responsible for respecting that
effort and, thus, my vote would be to keep printk around for a while.
... we also support !CONFIG_PRINTK builds ;)
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists