mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Subject: [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 07/17] lockdep: Adjust check_redundant() for recursive read change
Date: Tue,  9 Jan 2018 22:38:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180109143900.27475-8-boqun.feng@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180109143900.27475-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>

As we have four kinds of dependencies now, check_redundant() should only
report redundant if we have a dependency path which is equal or
_stronger_ than the current dependency. For example if in
check_prev_add() we have:

	prev->read == 2 && next->read != 2

, we should only report redundant if we find a path like:

	prev--(RN)-->....--(*N)-->next

and if we have:

	prev->read == 2 && next->read == 2

, we could report redundant if we find a path like:

	prev--(RN)-->....--(*N)-->next

or

	prev--(RN)-->....--(*R)-->next

To do so, we need to pass the recursive-read status of @next into
check_redundant(). This patch changes the parameter of check_redundant()
and the match function to achieve this.

Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 13 ++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index e3bd872cc3ec..4655219c28c1 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1333,9 +1333,12 @@ print_circular_bug_header(struct lock_list *entry, unsigned int depth,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static inline int class_equal(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
+static inline int hlock_equal(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
 {
-	return entry->class == data;
+	struct held_lock *hlock = (struct held_lock *)data;
+
+	return hlock_class(hlock) == entry->class &&
+	       (hlock->read == 2 || !entry->is_rr);
 }
 
 static inline int hlock_conflict(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
@@ -1475,14 +1478,14 @@ check_noncircular(struct lock_list *root, struct held_lock *target,
 }
 
 static noinline enum bfs_result
-check_redundant(struct lock_list *root, struct lock_class *target,
+check_redundant(struct lock_list *root, struct held_lock *target,
 		struct lock_list **target_entry)
 {
 	enum bfs_result result;
 
 	debug_atomic_inc(nr_redundant_checks);
 
-	result = __bfs_forwards(root, target, class_equal, target_entry);
+	result = __bfs_forwards(root, target, hlock_equal, target_entry);
 
 	return result;
 }
@@ -2055,7 +2058,7 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
 	 * Is the <prev> -> <next> link redundant?
 	 */
 	bfs_init_root(&this, prev);
-	ret = check_redundant(&this, hlock_class(next), &target_entry);
+	ret = check_redundant(&this, next, &target_entry);
 	if (ret == BFS_RMATCH) {
 		debug_atomic_inc(nr_redundant);
 		return 2;
-- 
2.15.1

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-01-09 14:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-09 14:38 [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 00/17] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read locks Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 01/17] lockdep: Demagic the return value of BFS Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 02/17] lockdep: Make __bfs() visit every dependency until a match Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 03/17] lockdep: Redefine LOCK_*_STATE* bits Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 04/17] lockdep: Introduce lock_list::dep Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 05/17] lockdep: Extend __bfs() to work with multiple kinds of dependencies Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 06/17] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read in check_noncircular() Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 08/17] lockdep: Fix recursive read lock related safe->unsafe detection Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 09/17] lockdep: Add recursive read locks into dependency graph Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 10/17] lockdep/selftest: Add a R-L/L-W test case specific to chain cache behavior Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 11/17] lockdep: Take read/write status in consideration when generate chainkey Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 12/17] lockdep/selftest: Unleash irq_read_recursion2 and add more Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 13/17] lockdep/selftest: Add more recursive read related test cases Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 14/17] Revert "locking/lockdep/selftests: Fix mixed read-write ABBA tests" Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 15/17] lockdep: Reduce the size of lock_list Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:38 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 16/17] lockdep: Documention for recursive read lock detection reasoning Boqun Feng
2018-01-25  1:05   ` Randy Dunlap
2018-01-25  1:40     ` Boqun Feng
2018-01-09 14:39 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v4 17/17] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as a LOCKING PRIMITIVES reviewer Boqun Feng

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=20180109143900.27475-8-boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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®