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;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAF6AEGvTrfYYTfReGbAm9zcBNhjZvX0tko4kZUeQcyNZv4cM6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210125234901.2730699-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <YBlz8Go2DseRWuOa@phenom.ffwll.local> <CAF6AEGuWhGuzxsBquj-WLSwa83r+zO7jAQ9ten2m+2KtoGpYSw@mail.gmail.com> <YBp2h2cVXrF6lBno@phenom.ffwll.local> <CAF6AEGvTrfYYTfReGbAm9zcBNhjZvX0tko4kZUeQcyNZv4cM6w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/kms: Make a lock_class_key for each crtc mutex
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
To:     Krishna Manikandan <mkrishn@codeaurora.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 03 Feb 2021 13:58:28 -0800
Message-ID: <161238950899.76967.16385691346035591773@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Rob Clark (2021-02-03 09:29:09)
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:10 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 08:51:25AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 7:46 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:49:01PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > This is because lockdep thinks all the locks taken in lock_crtcs(=
) are
> > > > > the same lock, when they actually aren't. That's because we call
> > > > > mutex_init() in msm_kms_init() and that assigns on static key for=
 every
> > > > > lock initialized in this loop. Let's allocate a dynamic number of
> > > > > lock_class_keys and assign them to each lock so that lockdep can =
figure
> > > > > out an AA deadlock isn't possible here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: b3d91800d9ac ("drm/msm: Fix race condition in msm driver w=
ith async layer updates")
> > > > > Cc: Krishna Manikandan <mkrishn@codeaurora.org>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
> > > >
> > > > This smells like throwing more bad after initial bad code ...
> > > >
> > > > First a rant: https://blog.ffwll.ch/2020/08/lockdep-false-positives=
.html
> >
> > Some technical on the patch itself: I think you want
> > mutex_lock_nested(crtc->lock, drm_crtc_index(crtc)), not your own locki=
ng
> > classes hand-rolled. It's defacto the same, but much more obviously
> > correct since self-documenting.
>=20
> hmm, yeah, that is a bit cleaner.. but this patch is already on
> msm-next, maybe I'll add a patch on top to change it

How many CRTCs are there? The subclass number tops out at 8, per
MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES so if we have more than that many bits possible
then it will fail.