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;
Message-ID: <1570563324.5576.309.camel@lca.pw>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()
From:   Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        john.ogness@linutronix.de, david@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:35:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20191008191728.GS6681@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1570228005-24979-1-git-send-email-cai@lca.pw>
         <20191007143002.l37bt2lzqtnqjqxu@pathway.suse.cz>
         <20191007144937.GO2381@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <20191008074357.f33f6pbs4cw5majk@pathway.suse.cz>
         <20191008082752.GB6681@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <aefe7f75-b0ec-9e99-a77e-87324edb24e0@de.ibm.com>
         <1570550917.5576.303.camel@lca.pw> <20191008183525.GQ6681@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <1570561573.5576.307.camel@lca.pw> <20191008191728.GS6681@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 21:17 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 08-10-19 15:06:13, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 20:35 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > > I fully agree that this class of lockdep splats are annoying especially
> > > when they make the lockdep unusable but please discuss this with lockdep
> > > maintainers and try to find some solution rather than go and try to
> > > workaround the problem all over the place. If there are places that
> > > would result in a cleaner code then go for it but please do not make the
> > > code worse just because of a non existent problem flagged by a false
> > > positive.
> > 
> > It makes me wonder what make you think it is a false positive for sure.
> 
> Because this is an early init code? Because if it were a real deadlock

No, that alone does not prove it is a false positive. There are many places
could generate that lock dependency but lockdep will always save the earliest
one.

> then your system wouldn't boot to get run with the real userspace
> (remember there is zone->lock spinlock involved and that means that you
> would hit hard lock after few seconds - but I feel I am repeating
> myself).