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?

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?

-- Steve


> +     /*
> +      * 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;
>  
>       if (unlikely(current->hardirqs_enabled)) {
> @@ -3692,7 +3698,24 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigne
>  {
>       struct task_struct *curr = current;
>  
> -     if (unlikely(!debug_locks || curr->lockdep_recursion))
> +     /*
> +      * NMIs can happen in the middle of local_irq_{en,dis}able() where the
> +      * tracking state and hardware state are out of sync.
> +      *
> +      * NMIs must save lockdep_hardirqs_enabled() to restore IRQ state from,
> +      * and not rely on hardware state like normal interrupts.
> +      */
> +     if (in_nmi()) {
> +             /*
> +              * Skip:
> +              *  - recursion check, because NMI can hit lockdep;
> +              *  - hardware state check, because above;
> +              *  - chain_key check, see lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare().
> +              */
> +             goto skip_checks;
> +     }
> +
> +     if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_recursion & 
> LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK))
>               return;
>  
>       if (curr->hardirqs_enabled) {
> @@ -3720,6 +3743,7 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigne
>       DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hardirq_chain_key !=
>                           current->curr_chain_key);
>  
> +skip_checks:
>       /* we'll do an OFF -> ON transition: */
>       curr->hardirqs_enabled = 1;
>       curr->hardirq_enable_ip = ip;
> @@ -3735,7 +3759,10 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_off(unsign
>  {
>       struct task_struct *curr = current;
>  
> -     if (unlikely(!debug_locks || curr->lockdep_recursion))
> +     /*
> +      * NMIs can happen in lockdep.
> +      */
> +     if (!in_nmi() && DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_recursion & 
> LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK))
>               return;
>  
>       /*
> 

Reply via email to