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:   Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:31:59 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.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
Message-ID: <20190314123159.GB101545@google.com>
References: <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>
 <20190313155155.GN13351@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190313125125.1a1fb2f3@gandalf.local.home>
 <20190313180730.GU13351@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190313180730.GU13351@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:07:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:51:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 08:51:55 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 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!)
> > 
> > That would be trivial to implement:
> > 
> > #define lockdep_assert_in_irq() do {
> > 		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !current->hardirq_context);
> > 	} while (0)
> 
> Looks good to me!
> 
> Joel, does this work for you?  I could be wrong, but I suspect that Steve
> is suggesting that you incorporate the above into your eventual patch.  ;-)

Oh thanks for pointing that out. Yes it does work for me. I agree with the
lockdep API addition and others could benefit from it too. I will incorporate
the lockdep API addition into the RCU patch, but let me know if I should
rather split it.

thanks!

 - Joel