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;
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:20:47 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     David Sterba <DSterba@suse.com>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: introduce lockdep_assert_not_held()
Message-ID: <20190628122047.GG20977@suse.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, David Sterba <DSterba@suse.com>,
        peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190613133604.9889-1-dsterba@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190613133604.9889-1-dsterba@suse.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 03:36:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> Add an assertion that a lock is not held, suitable for the following
> (simplified) usecase in filesystems:
> 
> - filesystem write
>   - lock(&big_filesystem_lock)
>   - kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
>     - trigger dirty data write to get more memory
>       - find dirty pages
>       - call filesystem write
>         - lock(&big_filesystem_lock)
> 	  deadlock
> 
> The cause here is the use of GFP_KERNEL that does not exclude poking
> filesystems to allow freeing some memory. Such scenario is a bug, so the
> use of GFP_NOFS is the right flag.
> 
> The annotation can help catch such bugs during development because
> the actual deadlock could be hard to hit in practice.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

Any comments on that? I just found another case with convoluted
callstacks where the lockdep assertion would catch the potential lock up
earlier than under the testing load.