Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kvm: fix SRCU locking order docs

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 1/13/23 08:18, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 07:20:48AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 08:24:16AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 13:30 -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > +- ``synchronize_srcu(&kvm->srcu)`` is called inside critical sections
> > > > +  for kvm->lock, vcpu->mutex and kvm->slots_lock.  These locks _cannot_
> > > > +  be taken inside a kvm->srcu read-side critical section; that is, the
> > > > +  following is broken::
> > > > +
> > > > +      srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> > > > +      mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > "Don't tell me. Tell lockdep!"
> > >
> > > Did we conclude in
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/122f38e724aae9ae8ab474233da1ba19760c20d2.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > that lockdep *could* be clever enough to catch a violation of this rule
> > > by itself?
> > >
> > > The general case of the rule would be that 'if mutex A is taken in a
> > > read-section for SCRU B, then any synchronize_srcu(B) while mutex A is
> > > held shall be verboten'. And vice versa.
> > >
> > > If we can make lockdep catch it automatically, yay!
> >
> > Unfortunately, lockdep needs to see a writer to complain, and that patch
> > just adds a reader.  And adding that writer would make lockdep complain
> > about things that are perfectly fine.  It should be possible to make
> > lockdep catch this sort of thing, but from what I can see, doing so
> > requires modifications to lockdep itself.
>
> Please see if the follow patchset works:
>
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230113065955.815667-1-boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx
>
> "I have been called. I must answer. Always." ;-)

It's missing an important testcase; if it passes (does not warn), then 
it should work:

CPU 1                                    CPU 2
----------------------------             ------------------------------
mutex_lock(&m1);                         srcu_read_lock(&srcu1);
srcu_read_lock(&srcu1);                  mutex_lock(&m1);
srcu_read_unlock(&srcu1);                mutex_unlock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m1);                       srcu_read_unlock(&srcu1);

This is the main difference, lockdep-wise, between SRCU and an rwlock.

Paolo