Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock

[Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>]

On 03/20/10 14:56, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
 > On 03/19/10 06:16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
 >  >> And I have a question related to this dynamic patching approach for
 > lockdep.
 >  >> If dynamic proving turning on/off is provided,
 >  >> lockdep will be confused by inconsistency of lock acquiring log.
 >  >>
 >  >> Will the sequence,
 >  >>
 >  >> lock_acquire(l) -> turning off -> lock_release(l) -> turning on ->
 >  >> lock_acquire(l)
 >  >>
 >  >> detected as double acquiring?
 >  >>
 >  >> Should turning on/off lockdep be done in the time
 >  >> when every processes have no lock?
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > There is almost always a process with a lock somewhere ;-)
 >
 > Yeah :)
 >
 >  >
 >  > This is not a big deal, it's very similar to unfinished scenarios
 >  > due to the end of the tracing that can happen anytime and you miss
 >  > a lock_release or whatever. We can also begin the tracing anytime,
 >  > and you may receive orphan lock_release in the very beginning
 >  > because you missed the lock_acquire that happened before the tracing.
 >  >
 >  > Any locking scenario that doesn't fit into the state machine
 >  > or is incomplete must be considered as broken and then ignored.
 >  >
 >  >
 >
 > I see, thanks.
 > I have to fix state machine of perf lock.
 > Now it doesn't consider read, try and orphan events,
 > it is very incompletely..
 >

Ah, sorry, I've mentioned that these cases might be
a problem for validation part of lockdep, not for events.

If the lock and turning on/off sequence like this happened,
lock_acquire(l) -> turning off -> lock_release(l) -> turning on -> 
lock_acquire(l)
this will confuse validator of lockdep.
At least, task_struct.lockdep_depth will be corrupted.

And I have a trivial question to Ingo.
In lockdep, held_locks of task_struct are accessed this arithmetical way
		prev = curr->held_locks + i;
Of course this is valid way, but I feel it is more simple and natural way
		prev = curr->held_locks[i];

Is there a reason for this style?
This is a pure question. I have no intention to rewrite them :)

Thanks,
	Hitoshi