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;
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/urgent] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock()
 like a trylock
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        x86@kernel.org
References: <20210316153119.13802-4-longman@redhat.com>
 <161598470197.398.8903908266426306140.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
 <YFIASRkXowQWgj2s@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YFIEo8IVQ/Mm9jUE@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <e1bcd7fb-3a40-f207-ee19-d276c8b8bb75@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <e39f4e37-e3c0-e62a-7062-fdd2c8b3d3b9@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:35:12 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e1bcd7fb-3a40-f207-ee19-d276c8b8bb75@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 3/17/21 10:03 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 3/17/21 9:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> I will take a deeper look into why that is the case. 

 From reading the source code, nest_lock check is done in 
check_deadlock() so that it won't complain. However, nest_lock isn't 
considered in check_noncircular() which causes the splat to come out. 
Maybe we should add a check for nest_lock there. I will fiddle with the 
code to see if it can address the issue.

Cheers,
Longman