On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 07:58:09AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2023 09:58:10 -0800 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:03:30PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > On 12 Jan 2023 22:59:54 -0800 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > > > @@ -1267,6 +1267,8 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, bool do_norm)
> > > > {
> > > > struct rcu_synchronize rcu;
> > > >
> > > > + srcu_lock_sync(&ssp->dep_map);
> > > > +
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lockdep_is_held(ssp) ||
> > > > lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
> > > > lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > > > --
> > > > 2.38.1
> > >
> > > The following deadlock is able to escape srcu_lock_sync() because the
> > > __lock_release folded in sync leaves one lock on the sync side.
> > >
> > > cpu9 cpu0
> > > --- ---
> > > lock A srcu_lock_acquire(&ssp->dep_map);
> > > srcu_lock_sync(&ssp->dep_map);
> > > lock A
> >
> > But isn't it just the srcu_mutex_ABBA test case in patch #3, and my run
> > of lockdep selftest shows we can catch it. Anything subtle I'm missing?
>
> I am leaning to not call it ABBA deadlock, because B is unlocked.
>
> task X task Y
> --- ---
> lock A
> lock B
> lock B
> unlock B
> wait_for_completion E
>
> lock A
> complete E
>
> And no deadlock should be detected/caught after B goes home.
Your example makes me more confused.. given the case:
task X task Y
--- ---
mutex_lock(A);
srcu_read_lock(B);
synchronze_srcu(B);
mutex_lock(A);
isn't it a deadlock? If your example, A, B or E which one is srcu?
Regards,
Boqun
