Re: [PATCH] sparc/pci: Make pci_poke_lock a raw_spinlock_t.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 11/25/24 4:25 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 11/25/24 12:54, Waiman Long wrote:

On 11/25/24 3:23 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 11/25/24 12:06, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 11/25/24 11:33, Waiman Long wrote:
[ ... ]
Fixing that finally gives me a clean run. Nevertheless, that makes me wonder: Should I just disable CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING for sparc runtime tests ?

If no one is tryng to ever enable PREEMPT_RT on SPARC, I suppose you could disable CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING to avoid the trouble.


SGTM. I'll do that unless someone gives me a good reason to keep it enabled.


Actually it can not be disabled with a configuration flag. It is
automatically enabled. I'll have to disable PROVE_LOCKING to disable it.

config PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING
        bool                    <---- no longer user configurable
        depends on PROVE_LOCKING
        default y
        help
         Enable the raw_spinlock vs. spinlock nesting checks which ensure
         that the lock nesting rules for PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels are
         not violated.

I don't really like that, and I don't understand the logic behind it,
but it is what it is.

FWIW, the description of commit 560af5dc839 is misleading. It says "Enable PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING _by default_" (emphasis mine). That is not what the commit does. It force-enables PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING if PROVE_LOCKING is
enabled. It is all or nothing.

I think we can relax it by

diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 5d9eca035d47..bfdbd3fa2d29 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -1399,7 +1399,7 @@ config PROVE_LOCKING
  config PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING
         bool
         depends on PROVE_LOCKING
-       default y
+       default y if ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT
         help
          Enable the raw_spinlock vs. spinlock nesting checks which ensure
          that the lock nesting rules for PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels are

Sebastian, what do you think?


    depends on PROVE_LOCKING && ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT

seems to make more sense to me.

That will work too, but that will enforce that arches with no ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT will not be able to enable PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING even if people want to try it out.

Cheers,
Longman





[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [DCCP]     [Linux ARM Development]     [Linux]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Help]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux x86_64]     [Linux Hams]

  Powered by Linux