Re: [PATCH] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix remove_memory() lockdep splat

[David Hildenbrand]

On 10.01.20 18:39, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:36 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 10.01.20 18:33, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> 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)

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190724143017.12841-1-david@xxxxxxxxxx

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb