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, 12 May 2021 10:44:53 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc:     a.darwish@linutronix.de, bigeasy@linutronix.de, tglx@linutronix.de,
        shung-hsi.yu@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] seqlock,lockdep: Only check for preemption_disabled
 in non-rt
Message-ID: <YJuVhR9C6pUmZBOs@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210507233951.78950-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20210507234713.86097-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210507234713.86097-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 04:47:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> This silences the writer hitting this nonsensical warning on PREEMPT_RT.
> 
> Reported-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
> ---
> 
> v2: Resending because I had left out some small comments I had meant to add.
> 
>  include/linux/seqlock.h | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> index f61e34fbaaea..2ce3e1efc9a9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> @@ -268,7 +268,9 @@ static inline bool __seqprop_preemptible(const seqcount_t *s)
>  
>  static inline void __seqprop_assert(const seqcount_t *s)
>  {
> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
>  	lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
> +#endif
>  }
>  
>  #define __SEQ_RT	IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)
> @@ -529,6 +531,8 @@ static inline void do_write_seqcount_begin_nested(seqcount_t *s, int subclass)
>   * only if the seqcount write serialization lock is associated, and
>   * preemptible.  If readers can be invoked from hardirq or softirq
>   * context, interrupts or bottom halves must be respectively disabled.
> + * The PREEMPT_RT case relies on the reader serializing via LOCK+UNLOCK,
> + * so the context is preemptible.
>   */

I'm confused, and the Changelog is useless. The code you actually
changed is for seqcount_t, which doesn't have an associated LOCK. If
there is a lock, the code should be changed to use the appropriate
seqcount_LOCKNAME_t and the assertion will change into the one found in
__seqprop_##lockname##_assert(), namely:

  lockdep_assert_held(lockmember)


But as is, seqcount_t usage relies on being non-preemptible, even for
PREEMPT_RT, and this is a good thing. Please describe the site that goes
boom and explain things..