On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 15:27 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 09-10-19 09:06:42, Qian Cai wrote:
> [...]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/
> >
> > [ 297.425964] -> #1 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}:
> > [ 297.425967] __lock_acquire+0x5b3/0xb40
> > [ 297.425967] lock_acquire+0x126/0x280
> > [ 297.425968] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x50
> > [ 297.425969] serial8250_console_write+0x3e4/0x450
> > [ 297.425970] univ8250_console_write+0x4b/0x60
> > [ 297.425970] console_unlock+0x501/0x750
> > [ 297.425971] vprintk_emit+0x10d/0x340
> > [ 297.425972] vprintk_default+0x1f/0x30
> > [ 297.425972] vprintk_func+0x44/0xd4
> > [ 297.425973] printk+0x9f/0xc5
> > [ 297.425974] register_console+0x39c/0x520
> > [ 297.425975] univ8250_console_init+0x23/0x2d
> > [ 297.425975] console_init+0x338/0x4cd
> > [ 297.425976] start_kernel+0x534/0x724
> > [ 297.425977] x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26
> > [ 297.425977] x86_64_start_kernel+0xf4/0xfb
> > [ 297.425978] secondary_startup_64+0xb6/0xc0
> >
> > where the report again show the early boot call trace for the locking
> > dependency,
> >
> > console_owner --> port_lock_key
> >
> > but that dependency clearly not only happen in the early boot.
>
> Can you provide an example of the runtime dependency without any early
> boot artifacts? Because this discussion really doens't make much sense
> without a clear example of a _real_ lockdep report that is not a false
> possitive. All of them so far have been concluded to be false possitive
> AFAIU.
An obvious one is in the above link. Just replace the trace in #1 above with
printk() from anywhere, i.e., just ignore the early boot calls there as they are
not important.
printk()
console_unlock()
console_lock_spinning_enable() --> console_owner_lock
call_console_drivers()
serial8250_console_write() --> port->lock
