fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
The fixes tag patch resolves the lockdep warning. However, directly
removing rdt_last_cmd_clear() would leave the last_cmd_status interface
with stale logs, which does not conform to the functional definition before
the fix. Therefore, the rdt_last_cmd_clear() operation is performed after
successfully acquiring the rdtgroup_mutex.
Fixes: c8eafe149530 ("x86/resctrl: Fix potential lockdep warning")
Signed-off-by: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@huawei.com>
---
fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
index cc37f58b47dd..4aae9eb74215 100644
--- a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
+++ b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
@@ -536,6 +536,8 @@ static ssize_t rdtgroup_cpus_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
goto unlock;
}
+ rdt_last_cmd_clear();
+
if (rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKED ||
rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP) {
ret = -EINVAL;
@@ -3481,6 +3483,8 @@ static int mkdir_rdt_prepare(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
goto out_unlock;
}
+ rdt_last_cmd_clear();
+
if (rtype == RDTMON_GROUP &&
(prdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP ||
prdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKED)) {
--
2.25.1
Hi Zeng Heng,
Thank you very much for catching this and providing a fix.
On 5/29/25 4:33 AM, Zeng Heng wrote:
> The fixes tag patch resolves the lockdep warning. However, directly
> removing rdt_last_cmd_clear() would leave the last_cmd_status interface
> with stale logs, which does not conform to the functional definition before
> the fix. Therefore, the rdt_last_cmd_clear() operation is performed after
> successfully acquiring the rdtgroup_mutex.
I would like to suggest some rework to changelog to meet requirements from
Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst. Specifically the rules about
imperative tone and structure of the changelog. Below attempts to address
those requirements but please feel free to rework after you considered the
rules yourself:
A lockdep fix removed two rdt_last_cmd_clear() calls that were used
to clear the last_cmd_status buffer but called without holding the
required rdtgroup_mutex. The impacted resctrl commands are:
writing to the cpus or cpus_list files and creating a new monitor
or control group. With stale data in the last_cmd_status buffer the
impacted resctrl commands report the stale error on success, or append
its own failure message to the stale error on failure.
Restore the rdt_last_cmd_clear() calls after acquiring rdtgroup_mutex.
>
> Fixes: c8eafe149530 ("x86/resctrl: Fix potential lockdep warning")
> Signed-off-by: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> index cc37f58b47dd..4aae9eb74215 100644
> --- a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> +++ b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> @@ -536,6 +536,8 @@ static ssize_t rdtgroup_cpus_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> goto unlock;
> }
>
> + rdt_last_cmd_clear();
> +
> if (rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKED ||
> rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP) {
> ret = -EINVAL;
> @@ -3481,6 +3483,8 @@ static int mkdir_rdt_prepare(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> + rdt_last_cmd_clear();
> +
Could you please move this to be right after acquiring the mutex? I think clearing
last_cmd_status at beginning of a resctrl command's work is a good pattern to follow.
Thus a change like:
---8<---
diff --git a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
index 7410321d01ff..77d08229d855 100644
--- a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
+++ b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
@@ -3474,6 +3474,8 @@ static int mkdir_rdt_prepare(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
goto out_unlock;
}
+ rdt_last_cmd_clear();
+
/*
* Check that the parent directory for a monitor group is a "mon_groups"
* directory.
@@ -3483,8 +3485,6 @@ static int mkdir_rdt_prepare(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
goto out_unlock;
}
- rdt_last_cmd_clear();
-
if (rtype == RDTMON_GROUP &&
(prdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP ||
prdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKED)) {
---8<---
> if (rtype == RDTMON_GROUP &&
> (prdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP ||
> prdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKED)) {
Thank you very much.
Reinette
On 2025/5/30 6:01, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Zeng Heng,
>
> Thank you very much for catching this and providing a fix.
>
> On 5/29/25 4:33 AM, Zeng Heng wrote:
>> The fixes tag patch resolves the lockdep warning. However, directly
>> removing rdt_last_cmd_clear() would leave the last_cmd_status interface
>> with stale logs, which does not conform to the functional definition before
>> the fix. Therefore, the rdt_last_cmd_clear() operation is performed after
>> successfully acquiring the rdtgroup_mutex.
>
> I would like to suggest some rework to changelog to meet requirements from
> Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst. Specifically the rules about
> imperative tone and structure of the changelog. Below attempts to address
> those requirements but please feel free to rework after you considered the
> rules yourself:
>
> A lockdep fix removed two rdt_last_cmd_clear() calls that were used
> to clear the last_cmd_status buffer but called without holding the
> required rdtgroup_mutex. The impacted resctrl commands are:
> writing to the cpus or cpus_list files and creating a new monitor
> or control group. With stale data in the last_cmd_status buffer the
> impacted resctrl commands report the stale error on success, or append
> its own failure message to the stale error on failure.
>
> Restore the rdt_last_cmd_clear() calls after acquiring rdtgroup_mutex.
Thank you for the correction, I will review the requirements mentioned
in the documents above.
>
>>
>> Fixes: c8eafe149530 ("x86/resctrl: Fix potential lockdep warning")
>> Signed-off-by: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> index cc37f58b47dd..4aae9eb74215 100644
>> --- a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> +++ b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> @@ -536,6 +536,8 @@ static ssize_t rdtgroup_cpus_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
>> goto unlock;
>> }
>>
>> + rdt_last_cmd_clear();
>> +
>> if (rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKED ||
>> rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP) {
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>> @@ -3481,6 +3483,8 @@ static int mkdir_rdt_prepare(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
>> goto out_unlock;
>> }
>>
>> + rdt_last_cmd_clear();
>> +
>
> Could you please move this to be right after acquiring the mutex? I think clearing
> last_cmd_status at beginning of a resctrl command's work is a good pattern to follow.
> Thus a change like:
The patch will be corrected in version v2. Thank you again.
Best regards,
Zeng Heng
Hi Zeng Heng, On 5/30/25 2:34 AM, Zeng Heng wrote: > > The patch will be corrected in version v2. Thank you again. > I did not notice the outdated email addresses it until I received the mail bounces. Here are some updated email addresses for the next version: fenghua.yu@intel.com -> fenghuay@nvidia.com bp@suse.de -> bp@alien8.de Please drop Xiaochen Shen from next submission. Please include x86 maintainers in next submission: x86@kernel.org Thank you Reinette
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.