On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:34:33AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:17:33 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > And I'm also guessing that we can call this with interrupts enabled (based
> > > on the comment).
> > >
> > > And we have this:
> > >
> > > local_irq_enable()
> > > trace_hardirqs_on()
> > > lockdep_hardirqs_on()
> > > __this_cpu_read()
> >
> > Moo, two threads..
> >
> > 20201019183355.gs2...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
>
> But this one's much older ;-)
Yeah, my mailbox is a trainwreck :/
> >
> > ---
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:55:46AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > [ 92.898145] BUG: using __this_cpu_read() in preemptible [00000000]
> > > code: trinity-c6/526
> >
> > > [ 92.903305] Call Trace:
> > > [ 92.905182] __this_cpu_preempt_check+0xf/0x11
> > > [ 92.905968] lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x2c/0x18f
> > > [ 92.906853] trace_hardirqs_on+0x49/0x53
> > > [ 92.907578] __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x3a/0x134
> >
> > Hurph, that's a spurious local_irq_enable(). I suppose this'll fix it.
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index 3e99dfef8408..9f818145ef7d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -4057,9 +4057,6 @@ void lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare(unsigned long ip)
> > if (unlikely(in_nmi()))
> > return;
> >
> > - if (unlikely(__this_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion)))
> > - return;
> > -
> > if (unlikely(lockdep_hardirqs_enabled())) {
>
> Hmm, would moving the recursion check below the check of the
> lockdep_hardirqs_enable() cause a large skew in the spurious enable stats?
> May not be an issue, but something we should check to make sure that
> there's not a path that constantly hits this.
Anything that sets recursion will have interrupts disabled.
