On 2024-11-27 08:02:50 [-0800], Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/27/24 07:39, Andreas Larsson wrote: > > Even though this is for sparc64, there is work being done looking into > > enabling RT for sparc32. If the amount of fixes needed to keep > > PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING enabled is quite small at the moment I'd rather > > see it enabled for sparc rather than risking it becoming worse in the > > future. Okay. So you seem to be in favour of fixing the sparc64 splats Guenter reported? > > I don't know what the situation is for other architectures that does not > > support RT. > > > > For my part I still don't understand why PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING is no longer > a configurable option, or in other words why it is mandated even for architectures > not supporting RT. To me this means that I'll either have to disable PROVE_LOCKING > for sparc or live with endless warning backtraces. The latter obscures real > problems, so it is a no-go. It is documented in Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst how the locks should nest. It is just nobody enabled it on sparc64 and tested. The option was meant temporary until the big read blocks are cleared. > So, if people want to keep mandating PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING together with > PROVE_LOCKING for all architectures, I'll disable PROVE_LOCKING for sparc > in my testing. NP, just let me know. I'll then do the same for other > architectures not supporting RT if I hit the same problem there. Waiman posted a patch to disable it on architectures that don't support PREEMPT_RT. You could also post the patches you discussed. Andreas does not seem to be against it (but then I don't know if he is a 32 or 64bit guy). I did not year from other architectures so far. > Guenter Sebastian
