Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 13:25:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Cc:     paulmck@kernel.org, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        parri.andrea@gmail.com, will@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com, dlustig@nvidia.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        "andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com" <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Some -serious- BPF-related litmus tests
Message-ID: <20200525112521.GD317569@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200522003850.GA32698@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200522094407.GK325280@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200522143201.GB32434@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20200522174352.GJ2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <006e2bc6-7516-1584-3d8c-e253211c157e@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <006e2bc6-7516-1584-3d8c-e253211c157e@fb.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:38:21PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On 5/22/20 10:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:32:01AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:

> > > Also, what use is a spinlock that is accessed in only one thread?
> > 
> > Multiple writers synchronize via the spinlock in this case.  I am
> > guessing that his larger 16-hour test contended this spinlock.
> 
> Yes, spinlock is for coordinating multiple producers. 2p1c cases (bounded
> and unbounded) rely on this already. 1p1c cases are sort of subsets (but
> very fast to verify) checking only consumer/producer interaction.

Does that spinlock imply that we can now never fix that atrocious
bpf_prog_active trainwreck ?

How does that spinlock not trigger the USED <- IN-NMI lockdep check:

  f6f48e180404 ("lockdep: Teach lockdep about "USED" <- "IN-NMI" inversions")

?

That is; how can you use a spinlock on the producer side at all?