From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3F9DB7D46
	for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>;
	Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:53:19 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: linux-next: PowerPC WARN_ON_ONCE() after merge of the final
	tree (tip related)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <20100415073256.GG9240@elte.hu>
References: <20100415161214.04637496.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
	<20100415064940.GA9240@elte.hu>
	<20100414.235557.123118153.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20100415073256.GG9240@elte.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:51:30 +1000
Message-ID: <1271382690.13059.169.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, peterz@infradead.org, fweisbec@gmail.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
	hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 09:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It trades robustness for slightly better space/code efficiency.
> 
> Such a trap based mechanism exists on x86 as well and we use it for BUG_ON(). 
> We intentionally dont use it to generate warnings and dont override __WARN(), 
> because it would blow up way too often when a warning triggers in some 
> sensitive codepath that cannot take a trap.
> 
> Anyway, the warning obviously has to be fixed - but the boot crash itself is 
> PowerPC's own doing. 

Well, yes and no, as I explained in a separate branch of that thread. We
indeed can't cope with a WARN in that spot because it goes recursive. 

Now the reason we have this double-enable is due afaik to the way I
implemented IRQ trace, because things like syscalls basically
force-enable IRQs on powerpc and I don't necessarily have tracking
informations in the exception return path of what the "old" value was.

I need to double check what the exact scenario here is and whether I can
fix it but it's one of those cases where what lockdep is warning about
isn't actually an error I believe.

Cheers,
Ben.