On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 20:59, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> Why is lockdep in the subsystem prefix here? You are changing the CPU
> hotplug (not hotplus) code, right?
I will fix the typo ;( Thank you.
I referred to the commit cb92173d1f047. I will remove the prefix if the
way is more desirable.
> > cb92173d1f0 ("locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplug: Annotate AP thread") was
> > introduced to make lockdep_assert_cpus_held() work in AP thread.
> >
> > However, the annotation is too strong for that purpose. We don't have to
> > use more than try lock annotation for that.
>
> This lacks a proper explanation why this is too strong.
rwsem_acquire() implies:
1. might be a waiter on contention of the lock.
2. enter to the critical section of the lock.
All we need in here is to act 2, not 1. That's why I suggested trylock
version of annotation for that purpose.
Now that dept partially replies on lockdep annotaions for the waiters
and events, dept is interpeting rwsem_acquire() as a potential waiter
and reports a deadlock by the wait.
Of course, the first priority should be not to change the current
behavior. I think the change from non-trylock to trylock for the
annotation won't. Or am I missing something?
Byungchul
> > Furthermore, now that Dept was introduced, false positive alarms was
> > reported by that. Replaced it with try lock annotation.
>
> I still have zero idea what this is about.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
