Re: bug: ftrace & lockdep badness

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is the type of problems we deal with when we have the tracer 
> > > tracing lockdep code at the same time the lockdep code is checking 
> > > the tracer.
> > 
> > ok ... you are right, i guess we need to go back to raw locks after 
> > all?
> 
> I do like the fact that lockdep checks it too. But there's times 
> that we can not do that.
> 
> Perhaps we can do something in between.
> 
> Make a rb_spin_lock macro inside ring_buffer.c that can be either a 
> spin_lock or a raw_spin_lock.  There are some tracers that must have 
> this as a raw (function trace, irqsoff and preemptoff), but the rest 
> should be fine. We can make it where the rb_spin_lock is a raw lock 
> when any of those three tracers are configured, and make it into a 
> normal lock when they are not.
> 
> This way we can still test the integrity of the ring_buffer for 
> other tracers. We just need to be careful when we are using function 
> tracing or irqs/preempt off tracing. But we need to be careful with 
> those anyway.

i'd rather we not complicate this anymore and just go for raw locks 
unconditionally - or no raw locks unconditionally.

	Ingo