On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 16:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 17:13 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > Now, this patch alone just removes a debugging check - but i'm not > > > sure the debugging check is correct - we take the pi_lock in a raw > > > way - which means it's not lockdep covered. > > > > Ever since tglx did s/raw_/arch_/g raw_ is covered by lockdep. > > It's not lockdep covered due to the lockdep_off(), or am i missing > something? Your initial stmt was about the raw_ part, raw_ locks are tracked by lockdep ever since tglx renamed them to arch_ and introduced new raw_ primitives. But yeah, the lockdep_off() stuff also disables all tracking, on top of that it also makes lock_is_held() return an unconditional false (even if the lock was acquired before lockdep_off and thus registered). My patch that fixes lock_is_held() should avoid false lockdep_assert_held() explosions and this this printk() while rq->lock problem. Removing lockdep_off() usage from printk() would also be nice, but Mike triggered logbuf_lock <-> rq->lock inversion with that due to the up(&console_sem) wakeup muck. Ideally we'd pull the up() out from under logbuf_lock, am looking at that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html