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 S933029AbdBPTNJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:13:09 -0500
Received: from muru.com ([72.249.23.125]:35576 "EHLO muru.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932595AbdBPTNI (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:13:08 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:13:03 -0800
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King <rmk@armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Regression in next with use printk_safe buffers in printk
Message-ID: <20170216191302.GZ21809@atomide.com>
References: <20170213185956.GM3897@atomide.com>
 <20170214160140.GA401@tigerII.localdomain>
 <20170215180158.GO21809@atomide.com>
 <20170216013109.GA772@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170216040335.GR21809@atomide.com>
 <20170216042500.GC772@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170216151009.GS21809@atomide.com>
 <20170216163148.GA22354@tigerII.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170216163148.GA22354@tigerII.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

* Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> [170216 08:33]:
> On (02/16/17 07:10), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > [..]
> > > > > > Below is another issue I noticed caused by commit f975237b7682 that
> > > > > > I noticed during booting.
> > > > > 
> > > > > do you mean that with f975237b7682 you _always_ see that illegal RCU
> > > > > usage warning?
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah on every boot on devices using cpuidle_coupled.
> > > 
> > > does this mean that with the printk-safe patches reverted
> > > (so, basically, the same conditions module 4 printk patches)
> > > you don't see illegal RCU usage reports? at the moment I can't
> > > see any connection between f975237b7682 and RCU usage from idle CPU.
> > 
> > Yes reverting those four patches I listed earlier also makes it go
> > away.
> 
> aha... so, the previous RCU warning was simply suppressed by lockdep_off()
> that we used to have in printk().
> 
> 
> RCU dereference check
> 
> #define __rcu_dereference_check(p, c, space) \
> ({ \
> 	/* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
> 	typeof(*p) *________p1 = (typeof(*p) *__force)lockless_dereference(p); \
> 	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!(c), "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage"); \
> 	rcu_dereference_sparse(p, space); \
> 	((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(________p1)); \
> })
> 
> 
> where RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() that prints "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage"
> is
> 
> 
> #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s)						\
> 	do {								\
> 		static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned;		\
> 		if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) {	\
> 			__warned = true;				\
> 			lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s);	\
> 		}							\
> 	} while (0)
> 
> 
> 
> where debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()
> 
> int notrace debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(void)
> {
> 	return rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE && debug_locks &&
> 	       current->lockdep_recursion == 0;
> }
> 
> depends on lockdep state. and we just used to have
> 'current->lockdep_recursion != 0' here, because of lockdep_off()
> in printk() around console_unlock(), which increments ->lockdep_recursion.
> 
> now we have lockdep enabled and the ->lockdep_recursion == 0.
> 
> 
> so the RCU warning is valid and I need to Cc stable on that _rcuidle
> patch, the tracepoint is pretty old. it's from 3.4

OK thanks for checking why it changed.

Regards,

Tony