Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] mm, notifier: Add a lockdep map for invalidate_range_start

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Daniel Vetter (2018-11-27 07:49:18)
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 05:51:06PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > This is a similar idea to the fs_reclaim fake lockdep lock. It's
> > fairly easy to provoke a specific notifier to be run on a specific
> > range: Just prep it, and then munmap() it.
> > 
> > A bit harder, but still doable, is to provoke the mmu notifiers for
> > all the various callchains that might lead to them. But both at the
> > same time is really hard to reliable hit, especially when you want to
> > exercise paths like direct reclaim or compaction, where it's not
> > easy to control what exactly will be unmapped.
> > 
> > By introducing a lockdep map to tie them all together we allow lockdep
> > to see a lot more dependencies, without having to actually hit them
> > in a single challchain while testing.
> > 
> > Aside: Since I typed this to test i915 mmu notifiers I've only rolled
> > this out for the invaliate_range_start callback. If there's
> > interest, we should probably roll this out to all of them. But my
> > undestanding of core mm is seriously lacking, and I'm not clear on
> > whether we need a lockdep map for each callback, or whether some can
> > be shared.
> > 
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "JÃrÃme Glisse" <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Christian KÃnig" <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Any comments on this one here? This is really the main ingredient for
> catching deadlocks in mmu notifier callbacks. The other two patches are
> more the icing on the cake.
> 
> Thanks, Daniel
> 
> > ---
> >  include/linux/mmu_notifier.h | 7 +++++++
> >  mm/mmu_notifier.c            | 7 +++++++
> >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> > index 9893a6432adf..a39ba218dbbe 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> > @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ struct mmu_notifier_ops;
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > +extern struct lockdep_map __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map;
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * The mmu notifier_mm structure is allocated and installed in
> >   * mm->mmu_notifier_mm inside the mm_take_all_locks() protected
> > @@ -267,8 +271,11 @@ static inline void mmu_notifier_change_pte(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >  static inline void mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >                                 unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> >  {
> > +     mutex_acquire(&__mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_map, 0, 0,
> > +                   _RET_IP_);

Would not lock_acquire_shared() be more appropriate, i.e. treat this as
a rwsem_acquire_read()?
-Chris