Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 08:51:55 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        luto@kernel.org, byungchul.park@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/19] rcu: Add warning to detect
 half-interrupts
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20180829222021.GA29944@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180829222047.319-6-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20190311133939.GA29747@google.com>
 <20190311222903.GR13351@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190312150514.GB249405@google.com>
 <20190312152034.GZ13351@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190313150948.GA84821@google.com>
 <20190313112726.01d974fc@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190313112726.01d974fc@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190313155155.GN13351@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:27:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:09:48 -0400
> Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> 
> > AFAICS, lockdep does not specifically track when we enter an interrupt, but
> > rather only tracks when interrupts are enabled/disabled.
> 
> It does:
> 
> #define __irq_enter()					\
> 	do {						\
> 		account_irq_enter_time(current);	\
> 		preempt_count_add(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);	\
> 		trace_hardirq_enter();			\
> 	} while (0)
> 
> # define trace_hardirq_enter()			\
> do {						\
> 	current->hardirq_context++;		\
> } while (0)
> 
> 
> And if the hardirq_context ever does not match "in_irq()" lockdep will
> complain loudly.

Good to know, thank you!

Does this mean that there is a better approach that Joel's suggestion?
I believe he would end up with something like this:

	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) && !in_irq());

It would be nice if there is something like this:

	lockdep_assert_in_irq_handler();

But I haven't seen this.  (Not that I have looked particularly hard for
such a thing, mind you!)

							Thanx, Paul