Quoting Peter Zijlstra (2020-10-27 12:48:34) > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:30:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > This seems to make it happy. Not quite sure that's the best solution. > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > index 3e99dfef8408..81295bc760fe 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > @@ -4411,7 +4405,9 @@ static int mark_lock(struct task_struct *curr, struct > > held_lock *this, > > break; > > > > case LOCK_USED: > > - debug_atomic_dec(nr_unused_locks); > > + case LOCK_USED_READ: > > + if ((hlock_class(this)->usage_mask & > > (LOCKF_USED|LOCKF_USED_READ)) == new_mask) > > + debug_atomic_dec(nr_unused_locks); > > break; > > > > default: > > This also works, and I think I likes it better.. anyone? > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > index 3e99dfef8408..e603e86c0227 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > @@ -4396,6 +4390,9 @@ static int mark_lock(struct task_struct *curr, struct > held_lock *this, > if (unlikely(hlock_class(this)->usage_mask & new_mask)) > goto unlock; > > + if (!hlock_class(this)->usage_mask) > + debug_atomic_dec(nr_unused_locks); > +
>From an outside perspective, this is much easier for me to match with the assertion in lockdep_proc. Our CI confirms this works, and we are just left with the new issue of <4> [260.903453] hm#2, depth: 6 [6], eb18a85a2df37d3d != a6ee4649c0022599 <4> [260.903458] WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 5515 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3679 check_chain_key+0x1a4/0x1f0 Thanks, -Chris
