Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-09-06 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 10:17:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > I still think checking if IRQS are really disabled or not when lockdep > thinks it is (or not) is valuable and doesn't cause any other problems. Since check_flags() is a relatively cheap thing I would rather do something like so..

Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-09-06 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 10:17:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > I still think checking if IRQS are really disabled or not when lockdep > thinks it is (or not) is valuable and doesn't cause any other problems. Since check_flags() is a relatively cheap thing I would rather do something like so..

Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-09-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:52:58 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:20:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2) > > where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It > > would be good to

Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-09-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:52:58 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:20:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2) > > where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It > > would be good to

Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-09-06 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:20:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2) > where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It > would be good to have this upstream such that we know if it is really a > bug in the

Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-09-06 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:20:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2) > where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It > would be good to have this upstream such that we know if it is really a > bug in the

Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-09-05 Thread Steven Rostedt
Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2) where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It would be good to have this upstream such that we know if it is really a bug in the code itself, or if lockdep didn't keep up properly. -- Steve On Mon, 6

Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-09-05 Thread Steven Rostedt
Peter, you OK with this patch? I'm currently triggering a bug (in rc2) where this patch is telling me that lockdep is getting it wrong. It would be good to have this upstream such that we know if it is really a bug in the code itself, or if lockdep didn't keep up properly. -- Steve On Mon, 6

[PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-08-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
From: Steven Rostedt (VMware) While working on irqs disabled tracepoints, I triggered the following warning: [ cut here ] IRQs not disabled as expected WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/softirq.c:144 __local_bh_enable+0x9b/0xe0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 0

[PATCH] lockdep: Have assert functions test for actual interrupts disabled

2018-08-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
From: Steven Rostedt (VMware) While working on irqs disabled tracepoints, I triggered the following warning: [ cut here ] IRQs not disabled as expected WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/softirq.c:144 __local_bh_enable+0x9b/0xe0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 0