> > This is rather gross, and I'm guessing it adds extra work for the non-lockdep > case, assuming the compiler isn't so clever that it can figure out that the result > is never used. Not that this is a hot path... > > Does each lock actually need a separate subclass? If so, why don't the other > paths that lock all vCPUs complain? > > If differentiating the two VMs is sufficient, then we can pass in SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING > for the second round of locks. If a per-vCPU subclass is required, we can use the > vCPU index and assign evens to one and odds to the other, e.g. this should work and > compiles to a nop when LOCKDEP is disabled (compile tested only). It's still gross, > but we could pretty it up, e.g. add defines for the 0/1 param. I checked and the perf vCPU subclassing is required. If I just only use a SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING on the second VM's vCPUs I still see the warning. This odds and evens approach seems much better. I'll update to use that in the V2 unless there is a better idea.
