On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:55:46AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> [ 92.898145] BUG: using __this_cpu_read() in preemptible [00000000] code:
> trinity-c6/526
> [ 92.903305] Call Trace:
> [ 92.905182] __this_cpu_preempt_check+0xf/0x11
> [ 92.905968] lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x2c/0x18f
> [ 92.906853] trace_hardirqs_on+0x49/0x53
> [ 92.907578] __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x3a/0x134
Hurph, that's a spurious local_irq_enable(). I suppose this'll fix it.
---
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 3e99dfef8408..9f818145ef7d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -4057,9 +4057,6 @@ void lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare(unsigned long ip)
if (unlikely(in_nmi()))
return;
- if (unlikely(__this_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion)))
- return;
-
if (unlikely(lockdep_hardirqs_enabled())) {
/*
* Neither irq nor preemption are disabled here
@@ -4070,6 +4067,9 @@ void lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare(unsigned long ip)
return;
}
+ if (unlikely(__this_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion)))
+ return;
+
/*
* We're enabling irqs and according to our state above irqs weren't
* already enabled, yet we find the hardware thinks they are in fact
@@ -4126,9 +4126,6 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigned long ip)
goto skip_checks;
}
- if (unlikely(__this_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion)))
- return;
-
if (lockdep_hardirqs_enabled()) {
/*
* Neither irq nor preemption are disabled here
@@ -4139,6 +4136,9 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigned long ip)
return;
}
+ if (unlikely(__this_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion)))
+ return;
+
/*
* We're enabling irqs and according to our state above irqs weren't
* already enabled, yet we find the hardware thinks they are in fact
