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:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:31:15 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/urgent] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock()
 like a trylock
Message-ID: <YFIEo8IVQ/Mm9jUE@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210316153119.13802-4-longman@redhat.com>
 <161598470197.398.8903908266426306140.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
 <YFIASRkXowQWgj2s@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YFIASRkXowQWgj2s@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 02:12:41PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:38:21PM -0000, tip-bot2 for Waiman Long wrote:
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Treat as trylock for ww_mutex.
> > +	 */
> > +	mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, !!ww_ctx, nest_lock, ip);
> 
> I'm confused... why isn't nest_lock working here?
> 
> For ww_mutex, we're supposed to have ctx->dep_map as a nest_lock, and
> all lock acquisitions under a nest lock should be fine. Afaict the above
> is just plain wrong.

To clarify:

	mutex_lock(&A);			ww_mutex_lock(&B, ctx);
	ww_mutex_lock(&B, ctx);		mutex_lock(&A);

should still very much be a deadlock, but your 'fix' makes it not report
that.

Only order within the ww_ctx can be ignored, and that's exactly what
nest_lock should be doing.