Re: [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:53:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:34:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > commit 7deaa04b02298001426730ed0e6214ac20d1a1c1
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Tue Oct 13 12:39:23 2020 -0700
> > 
> >     rcu: Prevent lockdep-RCU splats on lock acquisition/release
> >     
> >     The rcu_cpu_starting() and rcu_report_dead() functions transition the
> >     current CPU between online and offline state from an RCU perspective.
> >     Unfortunately, this means that the rcu_cpu_starting() function's lock
> >     acquisition and the rcu_report_dead() function's lock releases happen
> >     while the CPU is offline from an RCU perspective, which can result in
> >     lockdep-RCU splats about using RCU from an offline CPU.  In reality,
> >     aside from the splats, both transitions are safe because a new grace
> >     period cannot start until these functions release their locks.
> 
> But we call the trace_* crud before we acquire the lock. Are you sure
> that's a false-positive? 

You lost me on this one.

I am assuming that you are talking about rcu_cpu_starting(), because
that is the one where RCU is not initially watching, that is, the
case where tracing before the lock acquisition would be a problem.
You cannot be talking about rcu_cpu_starting() itself, because it does
not do any tracing before acquiring the lock.  But if you are talking
about the caller of rcu_cpu_starting(), then that caller should put the
rcu_cpu_starting() before the tracing.  But that would be the other
patch earlier in this thread that was proposing moving the call to
rcu_cpu_starting() much earlier in CPU bringup.

So what am I missing here?

							Thanx, Paul