Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seqlock: Do the lockdep annotation before locking in do_write_seqcount_begin_nested()

[Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>]

On 2023/06/26 23:44, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2023-06-26 10:12:54, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 2023-06-24 15:54:12 [+0900], Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> Why not to do the same on the end side?
>>>
>>>  static inline void do_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
>>>  {
>>> - 	seqcount_release(&s->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>>>  	do_raw_write_seqcount_end(s);
>>> +	seqcount_release(&s->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>>>  }
>>
>> I don't have a compelling argument for doing it. It is probably better
>> to release the lock from lockdep's point of view and then really release
>> it (so it can't be acquired before it is released).
> 
> If this is true then we should not change the ordering on the _begin
> side either. I mean that we should call the lockdep code only
> after the lock is taken. Anyway, both sides should be symmetric.
> 
> That said, lockdep is about chains of locks and not about timing.
> We must not call lockdep annotation when the lock is still available
> for a nested context. So the ordering is probably important only when
> the lock might be taken from both normal and interrupt context.
> 
> Anyway, please do not do this change only because of printk().
> IMHO, the current ordering is more logical and the printk() problem
> should be solved another way.

Then, since [PATCH 1/2] cannot be applied, [PATCH 2/2] is automatically
rejected.



I found

  /*
   * Locking a pcp requires a PCP lookup followed by a spinlock. To avoid
   * a migration causing the wrong PCP to be locked and remote memory being
   * potentially allocated, pin the task to the CPU for the lookup+lock.
   * preempt_disable is used on !RT because it is faster than migrate_disable.
   * migrate_disable is used on RT because otherwise RT spinlock usage is
   * interfered with and a high priority task cannot preempt the allocator.
   */
  #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
  #define pcpu_task_pin()         preempt_disable()
  #define pcpu_task_unpin()       preempt_enable()
  #else
  #define pcpu_task_pin()         migrate_disable()
  #define pcpu_task_unpin()       migrate_enable()
  #endif

in mm/page_alloc.c . Thus, I think that calling migrate_disable() if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y
and calling local_irq_save() if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=n (i.e. Alternative 3) will work.

But thinking again, since CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y uses special printk() approach where messages
are printed from a dedicated kernel thread, do we need to call printk_deferred_enter() if
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y ? That is, isn't the fix as straightforward as below?

----------------------------------------
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 47421bedc12b..a2a3bfa69a12 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -5805,6 +5805,7 @@ static void __build_all_zonelists(void *data)
 	int nid;
 	int __maybe_unused cpu;
 	pg_data_t *self = data;
+#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
 	unsigned long flags;
 
 	/*
@@ -5820,6 +5821,7 @@ static void __build_all_zonelists(void *data)
 	 * calling kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN) with port->lock held.
 	 */
 	printk_deferred_enter();
+#endif
 	write_seqlock(&zonelist_update_seq);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
@@ -5858,8 +5860,10 @@ static void __build_all_zonelists(void *data)
 	}
 
 	write_sequnlock(&zonelist_update_seq);
+#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
 	printk_deferred_exit();
 	local_irq_restore(flags);
+#endif
 }
 
 static noinline void __init
----------------------------------------