[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200526081350.GI317569@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 10:13:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Sebastian A. Siewior" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 07/25] lockdep: Add preemption disabled assertion API
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:52:31AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists