Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-42155-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:20:52 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel_team@skhynix.com,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com,
	linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	will@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, joel@joelfernandes.org,
	sashal@kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, duyuyang@gmail.com,
	johannes.berg@intel.com, tj@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
	willy@infradead.org, david@fromorbit.com, amir73il@gmail.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-team@lge.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, minchan@kernel.org,
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, sj@kernel.org,
	jglisse@redhat.com, dennis@kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
	penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
	ngupta@vflare.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	josef@toxicpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, jlayton@kernel.org,
	dan.j.williams@intel.com, hch@infradead.org, djwong@kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com,
	melissa.srw@gmail.com, hamohammed.sa@gmail.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com,
	chris.p.wilson@intel.com, gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com,
	max.byungchul.park@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
	longman@redhat.com, hdanton@sina.com, her0gyugyu@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 14/26] locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplus: Use a weaker
 annotation in AP thread
Message-ID: <20240129042052.GA64402@system.software.com>
References: <20240124115938.80132-1-byungchul@sk.com>
 <20240124115938.80132-15-byungchul@sk.com>
 <87il3ggfz9.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87il3ggfz9.ffs@tglx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 20:59, Byungchul Park wrote:
> 
> Why is lockdep in the subsystem prefix here? You are changing the CPU
> hotplug (not hotplus) code, right?

I will fix the typo ;( Thank you.

I referred to the commit cb92173d1f047. I will remove the prefix if the
way is more desirable.

> > cb92173d1f0 ("locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplug: Annotate AP thread") was
> > introduced to make lockdep_assert_cpus_held() work in AP thread.
> >
> > However, the annotation is too strong for that purpose. We don't have to
> > use more than try lock annotation for that.
> 
> This lacks a proper explanation why this is too strong.

rwsem_acquire() implies:

   1. might be a waiter on contention of the lock.
   2. enter to the critical section of the lock.

All we need in here is to act 2, not 1. That's why I suggested trylock
version of annotation for that purpose.

Now that dept partially replies on lockdep annotaions for the waiters
and events, dept is interpeting rwsem_acquire() as a potential waiter
and reports a deadlock by the wait.

Of course, the first priority should be not to change the current
behavior. I think the change from non-trylock to trylock for the
annotation won't. Or am I missing something?

	Byungchul

> > Furthermore, now that Dept was introduced, false positive alarms was
> > reported by that. Replaced it with try lock annotation.
> 
> I still have zero idea what this is about.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx