Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:35:01 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Subject: Re: possible lockdep regression introduced by 4d004099a668
 ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion")
Message-ID: <20201026203501.GU6756@twin.jikos.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
References: <a5cf643b-842f-7a60-73c7-85d738a9276f@suse.com>
 <20201026114009.GN2594@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <0c0d815c-bd5a-ff2d-1417-28a41173f2b4@suse.com>
 <20201026125524.GP2594@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201026125524.GP2594@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:55:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:56:03AM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > That smells like the same issue reported here:
> > > 
> > >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201022111700.GZ2651@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> > > 
> > > Make sure you have commit:
> > > 
> > >   f8e48a3dca06 ("lockdep: Fix preemption WARN for spurious IRQ-enable")
> > > 
> > > (in Linus' tree by now) and do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT enabled?
> > 
> > Yes, CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is enabled.
> 
> Bummer :/

My builds don't have that enabled (CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y) but I still
see the warning (same scenario as for Filipe). That is with today's
master branch + your fix from locking/urgent.

> > I'll try with that commit and let you know, however it's gonna take a
> > few hours to build a kernel and run all fstests (on that test box it
> > takes over 3 hours) to confirm that fixes the issue.
> 
> *ouch*, 3 hours is painful. How long to make it sick with the current
> kernel? quicker I would hope?
> 
> > Thanks for the quick reply!
> 
> Anyway, I don't think that commit can actually explain the issue :/
> 
> The false positive on lockdep_assert_held() happens when the recursion
> count is !0, however we _should_ be having IRQs disabled when
> lockdep_recursion > 0, so that should never be observable.
> 
> My hope was that DEBUG_PREEMPT would trigger on one of the
> __this_cpu_{inc,dec}(lockdep_recursion) instance, because that would
> then be a clear violation.

I can start another round (in my case it's more than 4 hours to
reproduce it) with DEBUG_PREEMPT, unless you have something else to
test.