Re: [PATCH] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix remove_memory() lockdep splat

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:29 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
[..]
> > So then the comment is actively misleading for that case. I would
> > expect an explicit _unlocked path for that case with a comment about
> > why it's special. Is there already a comment to that effect somewhere?
> >
>
> __add_memory() - the locked variant - is called from the same ACPI location
> either locked or unlocked. I added a comment back then after a longe
> discussion with Michal:
>
> drivers/acpi/scan.c:
>         /*
>          * Although we call __add_memory() that is documented to require the
>          * device_hotplug_lock, it is not necessary here because this is an
>          * early code when userspace or any other code path cannot trigger
>          * hotplug/hotunplug operations.
>          */
>
>
> It really is a special case, though.

That's a large comment block when we could have just taken the lock.
There's probably many other code paths in the kernel where some locks
are not necessary before userspace is up, but the code takes the lock
anyway to minimize the code maintenance burden. Is there really a
compelling reason to be clever here?