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:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:21:50 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion
Message-ID: <20201009182150.GK29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <160223032121.7002.1269740091547117869.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
 <e438b231c5e1478527af6c3e69bf0b37df650110.camel@redhat.com>
 <20201009135837.GD29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20201009162352.GR2611@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <e8fce9c0db7985e132262fd508a519ade656bdd8.camel@redhat.com>
 <942e0ffb37a4580982206d72404c521d72d38314.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <942e0ffb37a4580982206d72404c521d72d38314.camel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 01:54:34PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 13:36 -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > Back to x86, we have:
> > 
> > start_secondary()
> >   smp_callin()
> >     apic_ap_setup()
> >       setup_local_APIC()
> >         printk() in certain conditions.
> > 
> > which is before smp_store_cpu_info().
> > 
> > Can't we add a rcu_cpu_starting() at the very top for each start_secondary(),
> > secondary_start_kernel(), smp_start_secondary() etc, so we don't worry about
> > any printk() later?
> 
> This is rather irony. rcu_cpu_starting() is taking a lock and then reports
> itself.
> 
> [    8.826732][    T0]  __lock_acquire.cold.76+0x2ad/0x3e0
> [    8.826732][    T0]  lock_acquire+0x1c8/0x820
> [    8.826732][    T0]  _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x30/0x50
> [    8.826732][    T0]  rcu_cpu_starting+0xd0/0x2c0
> [    8.826732][    T0]  start_secondary+0x10/0x2a0
> [    8.826732][    T0]  secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb8/0xbb

Fun!!!

There should be some way around this.  I cannot safely record the
offline-to-online transition without acquiring a lock.  I suppose
I could trick lockdep into thinking that it was a recursive lockdep
report.  Any other approaches?

						Thanx, Paul