Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <d1d44f07-558c-e0ed-403e-61a854c868cb@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 10:20:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kvm: fix SRCU locking order docs
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        seanjc@google.com, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
References: <20230111183031.2449668-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <a14a13a690277d4cc95a4b26aa2d9a4d9b392a74.camel@infradead.org>
 <20230112152048.GJ4028633@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y8EF24o932lcshKs@boqun-archlinux>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y8EF24o932lcshKs@boqun-archlinux>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 1/13/23 08:18, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 07:20:48AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 08:24:16AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 13:30 -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +- ``synchronize_srcu(&kvm->srcu)`` is called inside critical sections
>>>> +  for kvm->lock, vcpu->mutex and kvm->slots_lock.  These locks _cannot_
>>>> +  be taken inside a kvm->srcu read-side critical section; that is, the
>>>> +  following is broken::
>>>> +
>>>> +      srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>>>> +      mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> "Don't tell me. Tell lockdep!"
>>>
>>> Did we conclude in
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/122f38e724aae9ae8ab474233da1ba19760c20d2.camel@infradead.org/
>>> that lockdep *could* be clever enough to catch a violation of this rule
>>> by itself?
>>>
>>> The general case of the rule would be that 'if mutex A is taken in a
>>> read-section for SCRU B, then any synchronize_srcu(B) while mutex A is
>>> held shall be verboten'. And vice versa.
>>>
>>> If we can make lockdep catch it automatically, yay!
>>
>> Unfortunately, lockdep needs to see a writer to complain, and that patch
>> just adds a reader.  And adding that writer would make lockdep complain
>> about things that are perfectly fine.  It should be possible to make
>> lockdep catch this sort of thing, but from what I can see, doing so
>> requires modifications to lockdep itself.
>>
> 
> Please see if the follow patchset works:
> 
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230113065955.815667-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com
> 
> "I have been called. I must answer. Always." ;-)

It's missing an important testcase; if it passes (does not warn), then 
it should work:

CPU 1                                    CPU 2
----------------------------             ------------------------------
mutex_lock(&m1);                         srcu_read_lock(&srcu1);
srcu_read_lock(&srcu1);                  mutex_lock(&m1);
srcu_read_unlock(&srcu1);                mutex_unlock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m1);                       srcu_read_unlock(&srcu1);

This is the main difference, lockdep-wise, between SRCU and an rwlock.

Paolo