[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 18:39, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:36 AM David Hildenbrand <> wrote:
>> 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).
> Ok, apologies I missed that opportunity to back you up. Michal, is
> this still worth it?

For your reference (roughly 5 months ago, so not that old)


David / dhildenb

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-10 18:43    [W:0.076 / U:10.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site