Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:31:08 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, will <will@kernel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, npiggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, joel <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 2/2] tools/memory-model: Provide exact SRCU semantics
Message-ID: <20230126193108.GH2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <Y9GO3xEYkIQq/qSl@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <Y9GPI/g23YWx+0Ce@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <Y9GPVnK6lQbY6vCK@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <c44183e7-44ae-4be3-bb47-517067a112b5@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y9Gyuj+2UFefUdJS@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <edadb690-e791-0e9c-e641-ea8876abe96e@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230126173507.GE2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y9LQEuUBn3fwZEBe@rowland.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y9LQEuUBn3fwZEBe@rowland.harvard.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:10:10PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:35:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:30:14PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > I don't think they're necessarily implemented in a compatible way, so
> > > 
> > > r = srcu_lock(s);
> > > srcu_up(s,r);
> > > 
> > > might not actually work, but would currently be ok'ed by LKMM.
> > 
> > In kernels built with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y (AKA built with lockdep
> > enabled), lockdep would complain about having an srcu_read_lock() with
> > no matching srcu_read_unlock().  Kernels built without lockdep (that is,
> > kernels actually used in production) would be happy with this.
> > 
> > So as Jonas suspects, this should be classified as not actually working.
> 
> Lockdep complaints don't actually stop things from working (unless you 
> want them to).  They're just warnings, right?

True, but they are taken seriously due to lockdep disabling itself after
the first warning.  So a warning for this sort of thing could hide some
other deadlock, which tend to strongly motivate fixing issues leading
to lockdep warnings.

							Thanx, Paul