[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1884dcea-9ecd-a1f3-21bb-213c655e2480@ozlabs.ru>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:16:39 +1000
From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: 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
On 23/07/2020 23:11, 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.
>
> trace_hardirqs_on/off implementation appears to expect to be called in NMI
> context though, for some reason.
>
>> That is, I recently
>> added suport for that on x86:
>>
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200623083721.155449112@infradead.org
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200623083721.216740948@infradead.org
>>
>> But you need to be very careful on how you order things, as you can see
>> the above relies on preempt_count() already having been incremented with
>> NMI_MASK.
>
> Hmm. My patch seems simpler.
And your patches fix my error while Peter's do not:
IRQs not enabled as expected
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1377 at /home/aik/p/kernel/kernel/softirq.c:169
__local_bh_enable_ip+0x118/0x190
>
> I don't know this stuff very well, I don't really understand what your patch
> enables for x86 but at least it shouldn't be incompatible with this one
> AFAIKS.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
--
Alexey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists