From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754804AbbEUIQN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 May 2015 04:16:13 -0400
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:35431 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754066AbbEUIPm (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 May 2015 04:15:42 -0400
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:15:34 +0200
From: AdrianRemonda <adrianremonda@gmail.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
        "moderated list:STAGING - LUSTRE..." <HPDD-discuss@ml01.01.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
        Greg Donald <gdonald@gmail.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Staging: lustre: sparse lock warning fix
Message-ID: <20150521081534.GA13975@debian>
References: <1431974091-26363-1-git-send-email-adrianremonda@gmail.com>
 <1431974091-26363-2-git-send-email-adrianremonda@gmail.com>
 <1431974091-26363-3-git-send-email-adrianremonda@gmail.com>
 <1431974091-26363-4-git-send-email-adrianremonda@gmail.com>
 <1431974091-26363-5-git-send-email-adrianremonda@gmail.com>
 <20150518212115.GN14154@mwanda>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150518212115.GN14154@mwanda>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:21:15AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:34:51PM +0200, Adrian Remonda wrote:
> > Fixed sparse warning: context imbalance in 'nrs_resource_put_safe' -
> > 'different lock contexts for basic block' by releasing the lock on each
> > iteration of the for loop.
> > 
> 
> That changelog doesn't sound correct at all.  That's not a correct
> motivation or explanation.
> 
> I reviewed the patch and it's likely going to cause dead locks. The code
> is trying to take the spinlock for the first pointer in the array and
> release it at the end.  Now it takes the first pointer's spinlock a
> bunch of times (dead lock) and releases it once (will not happen because
> we are already dead).
> 
> 

Hello Dan,

thanks for the comments. The code would end up looking as next, I don't
undertand where the deadlock would be.
I know the older code would work, I just changed it to keep the lock
locked the less time as possible.

        for (i = 0; i < NRS_RES_MAX; i++) {
                if (pols[i] == NULL)
                        continue;

                if (nrs == NULL) {
                        nrs = pols[i]->pol_nrs;
                }
                spin_lock(&nrs->nrs_lock);
                nrs_policy_put_locked(pols[i]);
                spin_unlock(&nrs->nrs_lock);
        }

best regards,
Adrian