On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 2:05 PM <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:03:51PM -0500, Uriel Guajardo wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:43 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 09:32:57PM +0000, Uriel Guajardo wrote:
> > > > +static inline void kunit_check_locking_bugs(struct kunit *test,
> > > > + unsigned long saved_preempt_count)
> > > > +{
> > > > + preempt_count_set(saved_preempt_count);
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> > > > + if (softirq_count())
> > > > + current->softirqs_enabled = 0;
> > > > + else
> > > > + current->softirqs_enabled = 1;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)
> > > > + local_irq_disable();
> > > > + if (!debug_locks) {
> > > > + kunit_set_failure(test);
> > > > + lockdep_reset();
> > > > + }
> > > > + local_irq_enable();
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Unless you can guarantee this runs before SMP brinup, that
> > > lockdep_reset() is terminally broken.
> >
> > Good point. KUnit is initialized after SMP is set up, and KUnit can
> > also be built as a module, so it's not a guarantee that we can make.
>
> Even if you could, there's still the question of wether throwing out all
> the dependencies learned during boot is a sensible idea.
>
> > Is there any other way to turn lockdep back on after we detect a
> > failure? It would be ideal if lockdep could still run in the next test
> > case after a failure in a previous one.
>
> Not really; the moment lockdep reports a failure it turns off all
> tracking and we instantly loose state.
>
> You'd have to:
>
> - delete the 'mistaken' dependency from the graph such that we loose
> the cycle, otherwise it will continue to find and report the cycle.
>
> - put every task through a known empty state which turns the tracking
> back on.
>
> Bart implemented most of what you need for the first item last year or
> so, but the remaining bit and the second item would still be a fair
> amount of work.
>
> Also, I'm really not sure it's worth it, the kernel should be free of
> lock cycles, so just fix one, reboot and continue.
>
> > I suppose we could only display the first failure that occurs, similar
> > to how lockdep does it. But it could also be useful to developers if
> > they saw failures in subsequent test cases, with the knowledge that
> > those failures may be unreliable.
>
> People already struggle with lockdep reports enough; I really don't want
> to given them dodgy report to worry about.
Ah, ok! Fair enough, thanks for the info. Although resetting lockdep
would be nice to have in the future, I think it's enough to only
report the first failure and warn the user that further test cases
will have lockdep disabled. People can then fix the issue and then
re-run it. I'll follow up with a patch that does this.
