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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190424101934.51535-1-duyuyang@gmail.com> <20190424101934.51535-24-duyuyang@gmail.com>
 <20190425195515.GX12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190425195515.GX12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:45:31 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHttsrZhg9tF_dng0LEqszYaK6Y48pyKAYKLAa+yZTkgQQaBXA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/28] locking/lockdep: Update irqsafe lock bitmaps
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     will.deacon@arm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, ming.lei@redhat.com,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for review.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 03:55, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > +     if (!dir) {
> > +             unsigned long *bitmaps[4] = {
> > +                     lock_classes_hardirq_safe,
> > +                     lock_classes_hardirq_safe_read,
> > +                     lock_classes_softirq_safe,
> > +                     lock_classes_softirq_safe_read
>
> That again should be something CPP magic using lockdep_states.h.

Yes.

> Also, that array can be static const, right? It's just an index into the
> static bitmaps.

Sure.

[...]
> > +static inline void remove_irqsafe_lock_bitmap(struct lock_class *class)
> > +{
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS) && defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)
> > +     unsigned long usage = class->usage_mask;
> > +
> > +     if (usage & LOCKF_USED_IN_HARDIRQ)
> > +             __clear_bit(class - lock_classes, lock_classes_hardirq_safe);
> > +     if (usage & LOCKF_USED_IN_HARDIRQ_READ)
> > +             __clear_bit(class - lock_classes, lock_classes_hardirq_safe_read);
> > +     if (usage & LOCKF_USED_IN_SOFTIRQ)
> > +             __clear_bit(class - lock_classes, lock_classes_softirq_safe);
> > +     if (usage & LOCKF_USED_IN_SOFTIRQ_READ)
> > +             __clear_bit(class - lock_classes, lock_classes_softirq_safe_read);
>
> More CPP foo required here.

Definitely.

> Also, do we really need to test, we could
> just unconditionally clear the bits.

Actually, these tests are used later for another cause: we want to
know which safe usage may be changed by zapping this lock.