From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
"David Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Maíra Canal" <mcanal@igalia.com>,
"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Daniel Diaz" <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>,
"David Gow" <davidgow@google.com>,
"Arthur Grillo" <arthurgrillo@riseup.net>,
"Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
"Naresh Kamboju" <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
"Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
"Linux Kernel Functional Testing" <lkft@linaro.org>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/15] net: kunit: Suppress lock warning noise at end of dev_addr_lists tests
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:34:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240403183412.16254318@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240403131936.787234-7-linux@roeck-us.net>
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:19:27 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> dev_addr_lists_test generates lock warning noise at the end of tests
> if lock debugging is enabled. There are two sets of warnings.
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 689 at kernel/locking/mutex.c:923 __mutex_unlock_slowpath.constprop.0+0x13c/0x368
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__owner_task(owner) != __get_current())
>
> WARNING: kunit_try_catch/1336 still has locks held!
>
> KUnit test cleanup is not guaranteed to run in the same thread as the test
> itself. For this test, this means that rtnl_lock() and rtnl_unlock() may
> be called from different threads. This triggers the warnings.
> Suppress the warnings because they are irrelevant for the test and just
> confusing and distracting.
>
> The first warning can be suppressed by using START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING()
> and END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING() around the call to rtnl_unlock(). To suppress
> the second warning, it is necessary to set debug_locks_silent while the
> rtnl lock is held.
Is it okay if I move the locking into the tests, instead?
It's only 4 lines more and no magic required, seems to work fine.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
"David Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Maíra Canal" <mcanal@igalia.com>,
"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Daniel Diaz" <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>,
"David Gow" <davidgow@google.com>,
"Arthur Grillo" <arthurgrillo@riseup.net>,
"Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
"Naresh Kamboju" <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
"Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
"Linux Kernel Functional Testing" <lkft@linaro.org>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/15] net: kunit: Suppress lock warning noise at end of dev_addr_lists tests
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:34:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240403183412.16254318@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240403131936.787234-7-linux@roeck-us.net>
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:19:27 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> dev_addr_lists_test generates lock warning noise at the end of tests
> if lock debugging is enabled. There are two sets of warnings.
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 689 at kernel/locking/mutex.c:923 __mutex_unlock_slowpath.constprop.0+0x13c/0x368
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__owner_task(owner) != __get_current())
>
> WARNING: kunit_try_catch/1336 still has locks held!
>
> KUnit test cleanup is not guaranteed to run in the same thread as the test
> itself. For this test, this means that rtnl_lock() and rtnl_unlock() may
> be called from different threads. This triggers the warnings.
> Suppress the warnings because they are irrelevant for the test and just
> confusing and distracting.
>
> The first warning can be suppressed by using START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING()
> and END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING() around the call to rtnl_unlock(). To suppress
> the second warning, it is necessary to set debug_locks_silent while the
> rtnl lock is held.
Is it okay if I move the locking into the tests, instead?
It's only 4 lines more and no magic required, seems to work fine.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
"David Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"Arthur Grillo" <arthurgrillo@riseup.net>,
"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
"Daniel Diaz" <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
"Naresh Kamboju" <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
"Maíra Canal" <mcanal@igalia.com>,
"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
"Linux Kernel Functional Testing" <lkft@linaro.org>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
"David Gow" <davidgow@google.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/15] net: kunit: Suppress lock warning noise at end of dev_addr_lists tests
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:34:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240403183412.16254318@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240403131936.787234-7-linux@roeck-us.net>
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:19:27 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> dev_addr_lists_test generates lock warning noise at the end of tests
> if lock debugging is enabled. There are two sets of warnings.
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 689 at kernel/locking/mutex.c:923 __mutex_unlock_slowpath.constprop.0+0x13c/0x368
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__owner_task(owner) != __get_current())
>
> WARNING: kunit_try_catch/1336 still has locks held!
>
> KUnit test cleanup is not guaranteed to run in the same thread as the test
> itself. For this test, this means that rtnl_lock() and rtnl_unlock() may
> be called from different threads. This triggers the warnings.
> Suppress the warnings because they are irrelevant for the test and just
> confusing and distracting.
>
> The first warning can be suppressed by using START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING()
> and END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING() around the call to rtnl_unlock(). To suppress
> the second warning, it is necessary to set debug_locks_silent while the
> rtnl lock is held.
Is it okay if I move the locking into the tests, instead?
It's only 4 lines more and no magic required, seems to work fine.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
"David Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Maíra Canal" <mcanal@igalia.com>,
"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Daniel Diaz" <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>,
"David Gow" <davidgow@google.com>,
"Arthur Grillo" <arthurgrillo@riseup.net>,
"Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
"Naresh Kamboju" <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
"Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
"Linux Kernel Functional Testing" <lkft@linaro.org>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/15] net: kunit: Suppress lock warning noise at end of dev_addr_lists tests
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:34:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240403183412.16254318@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240403131936.787234-7-linux@roeck-us.net>
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:19:27 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> dev_addr_lists_test generates lock warning noise at the end of tests
> if lock debugging is enabled. There are two sets of warnings.
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 689 at kernel/locking/mutex.c:923 __mutex_unlock_slowpath.constprop.0+0x13c/0x368
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__owner_task(owner) != __get_current())
>
> WARNING: kunit_try_catch/1336 still has locks held!
>
> KUnit test cleanup is not guaranteed to run in the same thread as the test
> itself. For this test, this means that rtnl_lock() and rtnl_unlock() may
> be called from different threads. This triggers the warnings.
> Suppress the warnings because they are irrelevant for the test and just
> confusing and distracting.
>
> The first warning can be suppressed by using START_SUPPRESSED_WARNING()
> and END_SUPPRESSED_WARNING() around the call to rtnl_unlock(). To suppress
> the second warning, it is necessary to set debug_locks_silent while the
> rtnl lock is held.
Is it okay if I move the locking into the tests, instead?
It's only 4 lines more and no magic required, seems to work fine.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-04 1:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-03 13:19 [PATCH v3 00/15] Add support for suppressing warning backtraces Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 01/15] bug/kunit: Core " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 02/15] kunit: bug: Count suppressed " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 03/15] kunit: Add test cases for backtrace warning suppression Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 18:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-09 18:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-09 18:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-09 18:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 04/15] kunit: Add documentation for warning backtrace suppression API Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-09 8:29 ` David Gow
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 05/15] drm: Suppress intentional warning backtraces in scaling unit tests Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 06/15] net: kunit: Suppress lock warning noise at end of dev_addr_lists tests Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-04 1:34 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2024-04-04 1:34 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-04-04 1:34 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-04-04 1:34 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-04-08 16:34 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-08 16:34 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-08 16:34 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-08 16:34 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 07/15] x86: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 08/15] arm64: " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 09/15] loongarch: " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 10/15] parisc: " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 11/15] s390: " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 12/15] sh: " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 13/15] sh: Move defines needed " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-05 18:31 ` Simon Horman
2024-04-05 18:31 ` Simon Horman
2024-04-05 18:31 ` Simon Horman
2024-04-05 18:31 ` Simon Horman
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 14/15] riscv: Add support " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-22 17:40 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-04-22 17:40 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-04-22 17:40 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-04-22 17:40 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-04-03 13:19 ` [PATCH v3 15/15] powerpc: " Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-03 13:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-04-04 2:14 ` Michael Ellerman
2024-04-04 2:14 ` Michael Ellerman
2024-04-04 2:14 ` Michael Ellerman
2024-04-04 2:14 ` Michael Ellerman
2024-04-03 21:20 ` [PATCH v3 00/15] " Kees Cook
2024-04-03 21:20 ` Kees Cook
2024-04-03 21:20 ` Kees Cook
2024-04-03 21:20 ` Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240403183412.16254318@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=arthurgrillo@riseup.net \
--cc=brendan.higgins@linux.dev \
--cc=dan.carpenter@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel.diaz@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lkft@linaro.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mcanal@igalia.com \
--cc=mripard@kernel.org \
--cc=naresh.kamboju@linaro.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.