From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI / scan: Acquire device_hotplug_lock in acpi_scan_init()
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:23:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h+MjC3gFm1Kf3eBg2Rs12368j6S_i5_Gc24yWx+Z3xBA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e31882cf-3290-ea36-77d6-637eaf66fe77@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:49 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, sorry. The real hack is calling a function that is *documented* to
> be called under lock without it. That is an optimization for a special
> case. That is the black magic in the code.
>
> The only alternative I see to this patch is adding a comment like
>
> /*
> * We end up calling __add_memory() without the device_hotplug_lock
> * held. This is fine as we cannot race with other hotplug activities
> * and userspace trying to online memory blocks.
> */
>
> Personally, I don't think that's any better than just grabbing the lock
> as we are told to. (honestly, I don't see how optimizing away the lock
> here is of *any* help to optimize our overall memory hotplug locking)
>
> @Rafael, what's your take? lock or comment?
Well, I have ACKed your patch already. :-)
That said, adding a comment stating that the lock is acquired mostly
for consistency wouldn't hurt.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-25 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-24 14:30 [PATCH v1] ACPI / scan: Acquire device_hotplug_lock in acpi_scan_init() David Hildenbrand
2019-07-25 9:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-25 9:18 ` Oscar Salvador
2019-07-25 9:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-25 9:23 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-07-25 12:56 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-25 13:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-07-25 13:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-25 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-07-25 19:19 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-25 20:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-07-25 21:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2019-07-26 7:20 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-07-26 7:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-26 8:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-07-26 8:31 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-26 8:36 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-07-26 8:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-26 8:57 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-07-26 10:31 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-26 10:37 ` David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJZ5v0h+MjC3gFm1Kf3eBg2Rs12368j6S_i5_Gc24yWx+Z3xBA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).