From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lglock: Use spinlock_t instead of arch_spinlock_t
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:17:34 +0200
Message-ID: <20150331091734.GA17126@gmail.com>
References: <1427382128-12541-1-git-send-email-daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
 <20150326160325.GA21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5518E838.4000409@bmw-carit.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]:33133 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752065AbbCaJRj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:17:39 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5518E838.4000409@bmw-carit.de>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>


* Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> wrote:

> On 03/26/2015 05:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:02:08PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >> @@ -67,9 +67,9 @@ void lg_global_lock(struct lglock *lg)
> >>  	preempt_disable();
> >>  	lock_acquire_exclusive(&lg->lock_dep_map, 0, 0, NULL, _RET_IP_);
> >>  	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> >> -		arch_spinlock_t *lock;
> >> +		spinlock_t *lock;
> >>  		lock = per_cpu_ptr(lg->lock, i);
> >> -		arch_spin_lock(lock);
> >> +		spin_lock(lock);
> >>  	}
> >>  }
> > 
> > Nope, that'll blow up in two separate places.
> > 
> > One: lockdep, it can only track a limited number of held locks, and it
> > will further report a recursion warning on the 2nd cpu.
> 
> I was wondering why I haven't seen it explode. As it turns out I haven't
> looked closely enough at dmesg:
> 
> [  +0.001231] BUG: MAX_LOCK_DEPTH too low!
> [  +0.000092] turning off the locking correctness validator.

Yeah, we try really hard to not crash the kernel from debugging code, 
whenever we can avoid it! That sometimes creates a false sense of good 
kernel health.

Thanks,

	Ingo