[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230314122725.GI1845660@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:27:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.3-rc2
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 01:01:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 at 12:40, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:18:33PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > How does the following look like as a culprit?
> > >
> > > 62b95a7b44d1 (ARM: 9282/1: vfp: Manipulate task VFP state with softirqs disabled)
> >
> > Ooh yeah, that asm implementation of local_bh_{dis,en}able completely
> > miss out on the lockdep state tracking. Also I think it breaks RCU, note
> > how __local_bh_disable_ip() explicitly does rcu_read_lock() for the
> > first bh-disable.
> >
>
> Thanks a lot for the diagnosis, doctor :-)
>
> I may need some hand holding getting this fixed - probably better to
> run the C implementations wherever feasible, right?
That is certainly the easiest and least risky approach yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists