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:   Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:55:07 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>,
        Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Avoid recursion in
 lockdep_count_{for,back}ward_deps()
Message-ID: <20200316135507.GF12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200312151258.128036-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20200313093325.GW12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200315010422.GA134626@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200315010422.GA134626@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 09:04:22PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:33:25AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Thanks Peter and Boqun, the below patch makes sense to me. Just had some nits
> below, otherwise:
> > @@ -1719,11 +1725,11 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_forward_deps
> >  	this.class = class;
> >  
> >  	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> > -	current->lockdep_recursion = 1;
> > +	current->lockdep_recursion++;
> >  	arch_spin_lock(&lockdep_lock);
> >  	ret = __lockdep_count_forward_deps(&this);
> >  	arch_spin_unlock(&lockdep_lock);
> > -	current->lockdep_recursion = 0;
> > +	current->lockdep_recursion--;
> 
> This doesn't look like it should recurse. Why not just use the
> lockdep_recursion_finish() helper here?

I chose to only add that to the sites that check recursion on entry.