Re: [PATCH 6/6] driver-core, libnvdimm: Let device subsystems add local lockdep coverage

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 03:21:58PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:40 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > For good reason, the standard device_lock() is marked
> > lockdep_set_novalidate_class() because there is simply no sane way to
> > describe the myriad ways the device_lock() ordered with other locks.
> > However, that leaves subsystems that know their own local device_lock()
> > ordering rules to find lock ordering mistakes manually. Instead,
> > introduce an optional / additional lockdep-enabled lock that a subsystem
> > can acquire in all the same paths that the device_lock() is acquired.
> >
> > A conversion of the NFIT driver and NVDIMM subsystem to a
> > lockdep-validate device_lock() scheme is included. The
> > debug_nvdimm_lock() implementation implements the correct lock-class and
> > stacking order for the libnvdimm device topology hierarchy.
> 
> Greg, Peter,
> 
> Any thoughts on carrying this debug hack upstream? The idea being that
> it's impossible to enable lockdep for the device_lock() globally, but
> a constrained usage of the proposed lockdep_mutex has proven enough to
> flush out device_lock deadlocks from libnvdimm.
> 
> It appears one aspect that is missing from this patch proposal is a
> mechanism / convention to make sure that lockdep_mutex has constrained
> usage for a given kernel build, otherwise it's obviously just as
> problematic as device_lock(). Other concerns?

Yeah, it feels a bit hacky but it's really up to a subsystem to mess up
using it as much as anything else, so user beware :)

I don't object to it if it makes things easier for you to debug.

thanks,

greg k-h