Re: [PATCH v4 14/19] sched, lockdep: Annotate ->pi_lock recursion

[Valentin Schneider]

On 23/10/20 11:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -2617,6 +2618,20 @@ void sched_set_stop_task(int cpu, struct
>               sched_setscheduler_nocheck(stop, SCHED_FIFO, &param);
>
>               stop->sched_class = &stop_sched_class;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * The PI code calls rt_mutex_setprio() with ->pi_lock held to
> +		 * adjust the effective priority of a task. As a result,
> +		 * rt_mutex_setprio() can trigger (RT) balancing operations,
> +		 * which can then trigger wakeups of the stop thread to push
> +		 * around the current task.
> +		 *
> +		 * The stop task itself will never be part of the PI-chain, it
> +		 * never blocks, therefore that ->pi_lock recursion is safe.

Isn't it that the stopper task can only run when preemption is re-enabled,
and the ->pi_lock is dropped before then?

If we were to have an SCA-like function that would kick the stopper but
"forget" to release the pi_lock, then we would very much like lockdep to
complain, right? Or is that something else entirely?

> +		 * Tell lockdep about this by placing the stop->pi_lock in its
> +		 * own class.
> +		 */
> +		lockdep_set_class(&stop->pi_lock, &stop_pi_lock);
>       }
>
>       cpu_rq(cpu)->stop = stop;