[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201216175259.GP3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 18:52:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: __local_bh_enable_ip() vs lockdep
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:47:24PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:01:52 +0100
> Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > the ftrace stack tracer kernel selftest is able to trigger the warning
> > below from time to time. This looks like there is an ordering problem
> > in __local_bh_enable_ip():
> > first there is a call to lockdep_softirqs_on() and afterwards
> > preempt_count_sub() is ftraced before it was able to modify
> > preempt_count:
>
> Don't run ftrace stack tracer when debugging lockdep. ;-)
>
> /me runs!
Ha!, seriously though; that seems like something we've encountered
before, but my google-fu is failing me.
Do you remember what, if anything, was the problem with this?
---
diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
index d5bfd5e661fc..9d71046ea247 100644
--- a/kernel/softirq.c
+++ b/kernel/softirq.c
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ void __local_bh_enable_ip(unsigned long ip, unsigned int cnt)
* Keep preemption disabled until we are done with
* softirq processing:
*/
- preempt_count_sub(cnt - 1);
+ __preempt_count_sub(cnt - 1);
if (unlikely(!in_interrupt() && local_softirq_pending())) {
/*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists