On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Testing tracer sched_switch: <6>Starting ring buffer hammer
> PASSED
> Testing tracer sysprof: PASSED
> Testing tracer function: PASSED
> Testing tracer irqsoff:
> =============================================
> PASSED
> Testing tracer preemptoff: PASSED
> Testing tracer preemptirqsoff: [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> PASSED
> Testing tracer branch: 2.6.30-rc8-tip-01972-ge5b9078-dirty #5760
> ---------------------------------------------
> rb_consumer/431 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (&cpu_buffer->reader_lock){......}, at: [<c109eef7>] ring_buffer_reset_cpu+0x37/0x70
>
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&cpu_buffer->reader_lock){......}, at: [<c10a019e>] ring_buffer_consume+0x7e/0xc0
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 1 lock held by rb_consumer/431:
>  #0:  (&cpu_buffer->reader_lock){......}, at: [<c10a019e>] ring_buffer_consume+0x7e/0xc0

The ring buffer is a generic structure, and can be used outside of
ftrace. If ftrace traces within the use of the ring buffer, it can produce
false positives with lockdep.

This patch passes in a static lock key into the allocation of the ring
buffer, so that different ring buffers will have their own lock class.

Reported-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <1244477919.13761.9042.camel@twins>

[ store key in ring buffer descriptor ]

Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>