[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix remove_memory() lockdep splat
On 10.01.20 18:33, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:29 AM David Hildenbrand <> wrote:
> [..]
>>> So then the comment is actively misleading for that case. I would
>>> expect an explicit _unlocked path for that case with a comment about
>>> why it's special. Is there already a comment to that effect somewhere?
>> __add_memory() - the locked variant - is called from the same ACPI location
>> either locked or unlocked. I added a comment back then after a longe
>> discussion with Michal:
>> drivers/acpi/scan.c:
>> /*
>> * Although we call __add_memory() that is documented to require the
>> * device_hotplug_lock, it is not necessary here because this is an
>> * early code when userspace or any other code path cannot trigger
>> * hotplug/hotunplug operations.
>> */
>> It really is a special case, though.
> That's a large comment block when we could have just taken the lock.
> There's probably many other code paths in the kernel where some locks
> are not necessary before userspace is up, but the code takes the lock
> anyway to minimize the code maintenance burden. Is there really a
> compelling reason to be clever here?

It was a lengthy discussion back then and I was sharing your opinion. I
even had a patch ready to enforce that we are holding the lock (that's
how I identified that specific case in the first place).


David / dhildenb

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-10 18:37    [W:0.053 / U:13.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site