From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751249AbdCQOmT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:42:19 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:57909 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751232AbdCQOmP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:42:15 -0400
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:41:41 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, wfg@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [locking/lockdep] 383776fa75:  INFO: trying to register
 non-static key.
Message-ID: <20170317144140.cpsdlpairb2falsv@linutronix.de>
References: <58cad449.RTO+aYLdogbZs5Le%fengguang.wu@intel.com>
 <20170317134109.e7qmjwpryelpbgz2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170317134109.e7qmjwpryelpbgz2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2017-03-17 14:41:09 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 02:07:05AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> 
> >     locking/lockdep: Handle statically initialized PER_CPU locks properly
> 
> > [   11.712266] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> 
> Blergh; so the problem is that when we assign can_addr to lock->key, we
> can, upon using a different subclass, reach static_obj(lock->key), which
> will fail on the can_addr.
> 
> One way to fix this would be to redefine the canonical address as the
> per-cpu address for a specific cpu; the below hard codes cpu0, but I'm
> not sure we want to rely on cpu0 being a valid cpu.

This solves two problems: The one reported by the bot. The other thing,
that is fixed by the patch, is that the first PER-CPU variable built-in
will return 0 for can_addr and so will the first variable in every
module. As far as I understand it, this should be unique and having the
same value for multiple different variables does not look too good :)
So adding the offset from CPU0 sounds good.

Sebastian