From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932658AbbDMQdE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 12:33:04 -0400
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:34827 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932081AbbDMQdC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 12:33:02 -0400
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:32:57 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, linux@horizon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] module: Sanitize RCU usage and locking
Message-ID: <20150413163257.GD6040@gmail.com>
References: <20150413141126.756350256@infradead.org>
 <20150413141213.241687161@infradead.org>
 <20150413153229.GA6040@gmail.com>
 <20150413154002.GI23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150413154002.GI23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:32:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > +static void module_assert_mutex_or_preempt(void)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > > +	int rcu_held = rcu_read_lock_sched_held();
> > > +	int mutex_held = 1;
> > > +
> > > +	if (debug_locks)
> > > +		mutex_held = lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex);
> > > +
> > > +	WARN_ON(!rcu_held && !mutex_held);
> > 
> > So because rcu_read_lock_sched_held() also depends on debug_locks 
> > being on to be fully correct, shouldn't the warning also be within the 
> > debug_locks condition?
> 
> Ah, see how mutex_held will be true for !debug_locks and therefore we'll
> not trigger the warn.
> 
> Maybe not the best way to code that though.
> 
> Something like so perhaps:
> 
> static void module_assert_mutex_or_preempt(void)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> 	if (!debug_locks)
> 		return;
> 
> 	WARN_ON(!rcu_held_lock_sched_held() &&
> 		!lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex));
> #endif

Yeah. I'd also make it:

 	if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
 		return;

or such.

Thanks,

	Ingo