Re: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMIwatchdog messages
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Jun 06 2011 - 05:25:11 EST
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 11:18 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
> On 06.06.2011 11:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 22:15 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
> >> Can lockdep just get confused by the lockdep_off/on calls in printk
> >> while scheduling is allowed? There aren't many users of lockdep_off().
> > Yes!, in that case lock_is_held() returns false, triggering the warning.
> > I guess there's an argument to be made in favour of the below..
> Two questions... is there any protection between the lockdep_recursion
> check and the set to one? I guess in our case it is, because it's the
> scheduler that calls it, but in general?
Yeah, its always current->lockdep_recursion, so there is no
> And why is lockdep needed to check if a lock is help? Isn't it reflected
> in the lock structure itself?
Ah, so the difference is between _who_ owns the lock. Things like
spin_is_locked() check if the lock is taken but cannot tell you who owns
it, but lock_is_held() checks if the current context owns the lock.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/