Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] locking: Implement an algorithm choice for
 Wound-Wait mutexes
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
References: <20180614072922.8114-1-thellstrom@vmware.com>
 <20180614072922.8114-2-thellstrom@vmware.com>
 <20180614113604.GZ12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <7eb10c22-57b3-1472-0a77-7f787f612217@vmware.com>
 <20180614132905.GA7841@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Message-ID: <425f4d5b-d414-de46-f388-55f1e6821ba6@vmware.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:43:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180614132905.GA7841@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: vmware.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2018 13:43:10.3490 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6fed7506-b41b-4fd5-bb2c-08d5d1fcc887
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: b39138ca-3cee-4b4a-a4d6-cd83d9dd62f0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR05MB4578
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 06/14/2018 03:29 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:54:15PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 06/14/2018 01:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Currently you don't allow mixing WD and WW contexts (which is not
>>> immediately obvious from the above code), and the above hard relies on
>>> that. Are there sensible use cases for mixing them? IOW will your
>>> current restriction stand without hassle?
>> Contexts _must_ agree on the algorithm used to resolve deadlocks. With
>> Wait-Die, for example, older transactions will wait if a lock is held by a
>> younger transaction and with Wound-Wait, younger transactions will wait if a
>> lock is held by an older transaction so there is no way of mixing them.
> Maybe the compiler should be enforcing that; ie make it a different type?

It's intended to be enforced by storing the algorithm choice in the 
WW_MUTEX_CLASS which must be common for an acquire context and the 
ww_mutexes it acquires. However, I don't think there is a check that 
that holds. I guess we could add it as a DEBUG_MUTEX test in 
ww_mutex_lock().

Thanks,

Thomas