[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200812103530.GL2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:35:30 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
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
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 06:18:28PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from peterz@...radead.org's message of August 7, 2020 9:11 pm:
> >
> > What's wrong with something like this?
> >
> > AFAICT there's no reason to actually try and add IRQ tracing here, it's
> > just a hand full of instructions at the most.
>
> Because we may want to use that in other places as well, so it would
> be nice to have tracing.
>
> Hmm... also, I thought NMI context was free to call local_irq_save/restore
> anyway so the bug would still be there in those cases?
NMI code has in_nmi() true, in which case the IRQ tracing is disabled
(except for x86 which has CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_NMI).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists