Re: [PATCH 03/32] locking/lockdep: lockdep_set_no_check_recursion()

Peter Zijlstra
2023-05-10T08:59:31Z

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 04:18:59PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:31:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 12:56:28PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > This adds a method to tell lockdep not to check lock ordering within a
> > > lock class - but to still check lock ordering w.r.t. other lock types.
> > >
> > > This is for bcachefs, where for btree node locks we have our own
> > > deadlock avoidance strategy w.r.t. other btree node locks (cycle
> > > detection), but we still want lockdep to check lock ordering w.r.t.
> > > other lock types.
> > >
> >
> > ISTR you had a much nicer version of this where you gave a custom order
> > function -- what happend to that?
>
> Actually, I spoke too soon; this patch and the other series with the
> comparison function solve different problems.
>
> For bcachefs btree node locks, we don't have a defined lock ordering at
> all - we do full runtime cycle detection, so we don't want lockdep
> checking for self deadlock because we're handling that but we _do_ want
> lockdep checking lock ordering of btree node locks w.r.t. other locks in
> the system.

Have you read the ww_mutex code? If not, please do so, it does similar
things.

The way it gets around the self-nesting check is by using the nest_lock
annotation, the acquire context itself also has a dep_map for this
purpose.