[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e1bcd7fb-3a40-f207-ee19-d276c8b8bb75@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:03:07 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/urgent] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock()
like a trylock
On 3/17/21 9:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 02:12:41PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:38:21PM -0000, tip-bot2 for Waiman Long wrote:
>>> + /*
>>> + * Treat as trylock for ww_mutex.
>>> + */
>>> + mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, !!ww_ctx, nest_lock, ip);
>> I'm confused... why isn't nest_lock working here?
>>
>> For ww_mutex, we're supposed to have ctx->dep_map as a nest_lock, and
>> all lock acquisitions under a nest lock should be fine. Afaict the above
>> is just plain wrong.
> To clarify:
>
> mutex_lock(&A); ww_mutex_lock(&B, ctx);
> ww_mutex_lock(&B, ctx); mutex_lock(&A);
>
> should still very much be a deadlock, but your 'fix' makes it not report
> that.
>
> Only order within the ww_ctx can be ignored, and that's exactly what
> nest_lock should be doing.
>
I will take a deeper look into why that is the case.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists