mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH 000 of 4] Introduction
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:09:01 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061011155522.7915.patches@notabene> (raw)

Following 4 patches address issues with lockdep, particularly around bd_mutex.

They are against 2.6.18-mm3 and do *not* apply against -linus as -mm already has
some changes to the handling of bd_mutex nesting.  2-4 probably apply on top of -linus plus
-mm/broken-out/remove-the-old-bd_mutex-lockdep-annotation.patch  

I believe they are probably ok for 2.6.19.

The core issue is that blkdev_get when called on a partition needs to
lock (bd_mutex) the partition and the whole device.  lockdep would
normally see this as a possible deadlock and needs to be told that
this particular nesting is known to be safe.

The code to do this is in -linus is rather messy, largely because the
locking itself is messy.  The bd_mutex for the whole is taken several
times while bd_mutex for the partition is held, and it is taken at
both levels of the recursion (blkdev_get calls blkdev_get - only to
one level).

As key observation to simplifying the locking is to observer that a
lot of the locking is there to protect the updating of bd_part_count.
If those updates are moved, the locking can become simpler.

The first patch removes the current approach in -mm to handling this
nesting and explains why it is not ideal.
This reverts new-bd_mutex-lockdep-annotation.patch

The second simplifies the locking as explained above.

The third adds the mutex_lock_nested annotations, which are now trivial.

The last fixes a tangentially related lockdep problem in md - there is
a false relationship between bd_mutex and md->reconfig_mutex which
needs to be clarified.

 [PATCH 000 of 4] Introduction
 [PATCH 001 of 4] Remove lock_key approach to managing nested bd_mutex locks.
 [PATCH 002 of 4] Simplify some aspects of bd_mutex nesting.
 [PATCH 003 of 4] Use mutex_lock_nested for bd_mutex to avoid  lockdep warning.
 [PATCH 004 of 4] Avoid lockdep warning in md.

             reply	other threads:[~2006-10-11  6:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-10-11  6:09 NeilBrown [this message]
2006-10-11  6:09 ` [PATCH 001 of 4] Remove lock_key approach to managing nested bd_mutex locks NeilBrown
2006-10-11  6:09 ` [PATCH 002 of 4] Simplify some aspects of bd_mutex nesting NeilBrown
2006-10-11  6:09 ` [PATCH 003 of 4] Use mutex_lock_nested for bd_mutex to avoid lockdep warning NeilBrown
2006-10-11  6:09 ` [PATCH 004 of 4] Avoid lockdep warning in md NeilBrown
2006-10-11  8:44 ` [PATCH 000 of 4] Introduction Peter Zijlstra
2006-10-11  8:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-10-11  9:20   ` Neil Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20061011155522.7915.patches@notabene \
    --to=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®