From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C107C982D7 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C0E006B009B; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:57:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BB8266B00A0; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:57:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id ABA9F6B00A1; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:57:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965F36B009B for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:57:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C59160197 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:57:50 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 84338282700.14.5421599 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C632000E for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:57:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020 header.b="vR/nqsXE"; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020e header.b=gEt4DiTq; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of bigeasy@linutronix.de designates 193.142.43.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bigeasy@linutronix.de ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1768579068; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=MteHt+cImKKzZpGbIox50GpMkIIyu/FGYOnhmVxrDM8CtPnt7rSnpbHNR2ZRSlyBMQygaI e/nwAi6l70auyoiSEF1G/Ca1jfU/7EiEu0d/+qISEcu4k4GnbBAUIFL1eUvT5c6yf6stPA duD+88D0wEos7Oaw2ONVZMifisc1DCs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020 header.b="vR/nqsXE"; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020e header.b=gEt4DiTq; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of bigeasy@linutronix.de designates 193.142.43.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bigeasy@linutronix.de ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1768579068; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=n9etu3sCjCjTSqJooigB4P2AvUUWV708r9U+I1MOI/Y=; b=k8aRVInr6mfcMcarGMQcctonApziQyCO/kTlWi0kXavIJ/93bL3u2lQKn0OUp20mkGgRCx R3mpAviVHh40HbaQeDT9KlY3RRWP8Kaa5ErGbs7HwrOnNTFTbG+hcZvL+uVatMT5WTqkRx 7am1HpSUX7fy2myfMfyd3s2Xnh9L70E= Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:57:43 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1768579064; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n9etu3sCjCjTSqJooigB4P2AvUUWV708r9U+I1MOI/Y=; b=vR/nqsXEkrmj920u4bSRlsg8D3RS5CLxH6+3Y3x4mGfnNhgVONyOrOCuM5Vwi6Nf+MOwvW hbzgjfqAfJfMQpEnXb/aoJCtEfA4H3dy4czCbD1dR4AG2dMpcygEITq80PBX9lGmLeK87u CXk9oyHMgXWQkzZb7t/1OYdOFV0d6+19Fd5gKygD/xly8P3t07enM6sMkn21vpF8tURjCn vw1eoPKrScIxMy8PV/NiqNQK694r61tw1HG5gmmrFWYf+xP4NbvZuJMWSO4VBg0hDeTjC+ 83zcWJ/4FQZAjTpPGfMG5bVz3myy4MclmipJBnLWwVj6xKFdwZoXAGM2MqelYQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1768579064; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n9etu3sCjCjTSqJooigB4P2AvUUWV708r9U+I1MOI/Y=; b=gEt4DiTqASRp7Z/aRq58bV9igLDbT8eP3Ad+TbHeuHcOcmClxTSb4LPcO0wCm9loMmeqGl M4ZTRH8MP0SZRwBA== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , "Liam R . Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Shakeel Butt , Jann Horn , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , Waiman Long , Clark Williams , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] locking: add rwsem_is_write_locked(), update non-lockdep asserts Message-ID: <20260116155743.AuMKcTAO@linutronix.de> References: <8e343ccb9319433364f5949a69519f1bb521fc8a.1768569863.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> <20260116151215.GH831050@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <99818e30-9f88-4751-af82-0bed019156eb@lucifer.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <99818e30-9f88-4751-af82-0bed019156eb@lucifer.local> X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: 97cbumnx46frzqr81eia7j8ok9oniuub X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 71C632000E X-HE-Tag: 1768579068-18563 X-HE-Meta: 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 3zuDrK6N HmJnj1wvkV7kPixWZvj4J87D+Q79rMGXIJLrp+sN9qybJae1Bfn2YRKUHaKBg6y6jfdaLTt0tE2ZBE8SJCeLEHNAJJppJxZddZeaJ8Fn9moTwC7j79dEzPSLeZItrdn2w9npbWV/kOTKZoxMoZF7iMR7cb6AKpM2Y6BntKPwH9gpJjiq/hojG65etEwQbh8JSqOBnXl3bP9NTTLjZF8ztR7KCPeJSksYAi0Dz/Ty6B5GRHnNWsvEznn+mPzwU1RXdclsVusYGKrs7SyZTroR5ynZs8dizT6kNtihK0F4tqblPuNxtKd1baz8mqS2RCw7eunjo0eNeLMnPs8czDcrb60Ckgg== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2026-01-16 15:50:24 [+0000], Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > No, but we need to be able to assert that one of two locks are held and we > don't want the failure of one being held to cause an assert when the other > isn't. But why don't you use the lockdep based check? That assert only ensures that it is locked at the time you did the check. This does not mean you are owner - it could be owned by another task which is unrelated to your cause. Sebastian