On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:14:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 23:27:41 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > There is no reason not to always, accurately, track IRQ state.
> >
> > This change also makes IRQ state tracking ignore lockdep_off().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -3646,7 +3646,13 @@ static void __trace_hardirqs_on_caller(v
> > */
> > void lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare(unsigned long ip)
> > {
> > - if (unlikely(!debug_locks || current->lockdep_recursion))
>
> Why remove the check for debug_locks? Isn't that there to disable
> everything at once to prevent more warnings to be printed?
Yeah, maybe. I was thinking we could keep IRQ state running. But you're
right, if we mess up the IRQ state itself this might generate a wee
mess.
> Also, isn't there other ways that we could have recursion besides NMIs?
> Say we do a printk inside here, or call something that may also enable
> interrupts? I thought the recursion check was also to prevent lockdep
> infrastructure calling something that lockdep monitors being a problem?
>
> Or am I missing something?
> > + /*
> > + * NMIs do not (and cannot) track lock dependencies, nothing to do.
> > + */
> > + if (in_nmi())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->lockdep_recursion &
> > LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK))
> > return;
^^ there's your regular recursion check.
