On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 21:23:39 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> The lockdep tracepoints are under the lockdep recursion counter, this > has a bunch of nasty side effects: > > - TRACE_IRQFLAGS doesn't work across the entire tracepoint, leading to > all sorts of dodgy complaints. > > - RCU-lockdep doesn't see the tracepoints either, hiding numerous > "suspicious RCU usage" warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > @@ -5000,8 +5000,9 @@ void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lo > raw_local_irq_save(flags); > check_flags(flags); > > - current->lockdep_recursion++; > trace_lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, nest_lock, ip); > + > + current->lockdep_recursion++; > __lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, > irqs_disabled_flags(flags), nest_lock, ip, 0, 0); > lockdep_recursion_finish(); > @@ -5016,10 +5017,13 @@ void lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lo > if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion)) > return; > > + Superfluous space. Other than that: Reviewed-by: Steven Rosted (VMware) <[email protected]> -- Steve > raw_local_irq_save(flags); > check_flags(flags); > - current->lockdep_recursion++; > + > trace_lock_release(lock, ip); > + > + current->lockdep_recursion++; > if (__lock_release(lock, ip)) > check_chain_key(current); > lockdep_recursion_finish(); > @@ -5171,7 +5175,7 @@ __lock_contended(struct lockdep_map *loc > stats->bounces[bounce_contended + !!hlock->read]++; > } >
