From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CD8C76190 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:19:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6ED214AE for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:19:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1564082388; bh=3b5t+P4OcHZqNSPt8rUwc9dhm7Bcq+0jJD5muC8U8Fg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=DXvpSkrQ1a59cAo5vVvHIRT1HUC3luEj36zmEkUbql8SRNIStTPA2NUgG5wS6JZh2 6DOXNUTeFB7uWQO7Kvpc3+DwN2sD45yolAdrAfS8Wl0/z+0OO7YosfXLgiJsMVdPnf h/nQvgPGg4MqeWIm5e8Y7A9DpT3R23pqiaTMi+oI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726713AbfGYTTr (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:19:47 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34164 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726705AbfGYTTr (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:19:47 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC79ADD9; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:19:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 21:19:43 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Oscar Salvador Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI / scan: Acquire device_hotplug_lock in acpi_scan_init() Message-ID: <20190725191943.GA6142@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190724143017.12841-1-david@redhat.com> <20190725125636.GA3582@dhcp22.suse.cz> <6dc566c2-faf6-565d-4ef1-2ac3a366bc76@redhat.com> <20190725135747.GB3582@dhcp22.suse.cz> <447b74ca-f7c7-0835-fd50-a9f7191fe47c@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <447b74ca-f7c7-0835-fd50-a9f7191fe47c@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu 25-07-19 16:35:07, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 25.07.19 15:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 25-07-19 15:05:02, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> On 25.07.19 14:56, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> On Wed 24-07-19 16:30:17, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>> We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held. > >>>> (I used a local patch to assert in __add_memory() that the > >>>> device_hotplug_lock is held - I might upstream that as well soon) > >>>> > >>>> [ 26.771684] create_memory_block_devices+0xa4/0x140 > >>>> [ 26.772952] add_memory_resource+0xde/0x200 > >>>> [ 26.773987] __add_memory+0x6e/0xa0 > >>>> [ 26.775161] acpi_memory_device_add+0x149/0x2b0 > >>>> [ 26.776263] acpi_bus_attach+0xf1/0x1f0 > >>>> [ 26.777247] acpi_bus_attach+0x66/0x1f0 > >>>> [ 26.778268] acpi_bus_attach+0x66/0x1f0 > >>>> [ 26.779073] acpi_bus_attach+0x66/0x1f0 > >>>> [ 26.780143] acpi_bus_scan+0x3e/0x90 > >>>> [ 26.780844] acpi_scan_init+0x109/0x257 > >>>> [ 26.781638] acpi_init+0x2ab/0x30d > >>>> [ 26.782248] do_one_initcall+0x58/0x2cf > >>>> [ 26.783181] kernel_init_freeable+0x1bd/0x247 > >>>> [ 26.784345] kernel_init+0x5/0xf1 > >>>> [ 26.785314] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 > >>>> > >>>> So perform the locking just like in acpi_device_hotplug(). > >>> > >>> While playing with the device_hotplug_lock, can we actually document > >>> what it is protecting please? I have a bad feeling that we are adding > >>> this lock just because some other code path does rather than with a good > >>> idea why it is needed. This patch just confirms that. What exactly does > >>> the lock protect from here in an early boot stage. > >> > >> We have plenty of documentation already > >> > >> mm/memory_hotplug.c > >> > >> git grep -C5 device_hotplug mm/memory_hotplug.c > >> > >> Also see > >> > >> Documentation/core-api/memory-hotplug.rst > > > > OK, fair enough. I was more pointing to a documentation right there > > where the lock is declared because that is the place where people > > usually check for documentation. The core-api documentation looks quite > > nice. And based on that doc it seems that this patch is actually not > > needed because neither the online/offline or cpu hotplug should be > > possible that early unless I am missing something. > > I really prefer to stick to locking rules as outlined on the > interfaces if it doesn't hurt. Why it is not needed is not clear. > > > > >> Regarding the early stage: primarily lockdep as I mentioned. > > > > Could you add a lockdep splat that would be fixed by this patch to the > > changelog for reference? > > > > I have one where I enforce what's documented (but that's of course not > upstream and therefore not "real" yet) Then I suppose to not add locking for something that is not a problem. Really, think about it. People will look at this code and follow the lead without really knowing why the locking is needed. device_hotplug_lock has its purpose and if the code in question doesn't need synchronization for the documented scenarios then the locking simply shouldn't be there. Adding the lock just because of a non-existing, and IMHO dubious, lockdep splats is just wrong. We need to rationalize the locking here, not to add more hacks. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs