[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1595520766.9z4077xel7.astroid@bobo.none>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:20:20 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: improve current->(hard|soft)irqs_enabled
synchronisation with actual irq state
Excerpts from Peter Zijlstra's message of July 24, 2020 12:59 am:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:11:03PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Excerpts from Peter Zijlstra's message of July 23, 2020 9:40 pm:
>> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 08:56:14PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
>> >> index 3a0db7b0b46e..35060be09073 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
>> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
>> >> @@ -200,17 +200,14 @@ static inline bool arch_irqs_disabled(void)
>> >> #define powerpc_local_irq_pmu_save(flags) \
>> >> do { \
>> >> raw_local_irq_pmu_save(flags); \
>> >> - trace_hardirqs_off(); \
>> >> + if (!raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)) \
>> >> + trace_hardirqs_off(); \
>> >> } while(0)
>> >> #define powerpc_local_irq_pmu_restore(flags) \
>> >> do { \
>> >> - if (raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)) { \
>> >> - raw_local_irq_pmu_restore(flags); \
>> >> - trace_hardirqs_off(); \
>> >> - } else { \
>> >> + if (!raw_irqs_disabled_flags(flags)) \
>> >> trace_hardirqs_on(); \
>> >> - raw_local_irq_pmu_restore(flags); \
>> >> - } \
>> >> + raw_local_irq_pmu_restore(flags); \
>> >> } while(0)
>> >
>> > You shouldn't be calling lockdep from NMI context!
>>
>> After this patch it doesn't.
>
> You sure, trace_hardirqs_{on,off}() calls into lockdep.
At least for irq enable/disable functions yes. NMI runs with
interrupts disabled so these will never call trace_hardirqs_on/off
after this patch.
> (FWIW they're
> also broken vs entry ordering, but that's another story).
>
>> trace_hardirqs_on/off implementation appears to expect to be called in NMI
>> context though, for some reason.
>
> Hurpm, not sure.. I'll have to go grep arch code now :/ The generic NMI
> code didn't touch that stuff.
>
> Argh, yes, there might be broken there... damn! I'll go frob around.
>
Thanks,
Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists