On Wed 31-07-19 15:02:49, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 31.07.19 14:53, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 31-07-19 14:32:01, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> Let's document why we take the lock here. If we're going to overhaul > >> memory hotplug locking, we'll have to touch many places - this comment > >> will help to clairfy why it was added here. > > > > And how exactly is "lock for consistency" comment going to help the poor > > soul touching that code? How do people know that it is safe to remove it? > > I am not going to repeat my arguments how/why I hate "locking for > > consistency" (or fun or whatever but a real synchronization reasons) > > but if you want to help then just explicitly state what should done to > > remove this lock. > > > > I know that you have a different opinion here. To remove the lock, > add_memory() locking has to be changed *completely* to the point where > we can drop the lock from the documentation of the function (*whoever > knows what we have to exactly change* - and I don't have time to do that > *right now*). Not really. To remove a lock in this particular path it would be sufficient to add /* * Although __add_memory used down the road is documented to * require lock_device_hotplug, it is not necessary here because * this is an early code when userspace or any other code path * cannot trigger hotplug operations. */ Now that is a useful comment because it documents an exception and gives you reasoning. If the above statement ever turns out to be incorrect due to later changes then you can replace it with the lock and the new reasoning. But "just for consistency argument" doesn't tell you much when scratching your head in the future and trying to figure out whether that consistency argument still applies or there are new reasons the lock is still needed. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
