lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subjectcheck && lockdep_no_validate (Was: lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks)
I changed the subject to avoid the confusion.

On 01/09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:31:20PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > - #define lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 0, 2, n, i)
> > - #define lock_acquire_shared(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 1, 2, n, i)
> > - #define lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 2, 2, n, i)
> > -#else
> > - #define lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 0, 1, n, i)
> > - #define lock_acquire_shared(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 1, 1, n, i)
> > - #define lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 2, 1, n, i)
> > -#endif
> > +#define lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 0, 2, n, i)
> > +#define lock_acquire_shared(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 1, 2, n, i)
> > +#define lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 2, 2, n, i)
>
> I suppose we could; note however that the if (!prove_locking) logic was
> added later.

OK, thanks...

> > But what I really can't understans is what "check == 0" means? It
> > seems that in fact it can be 1 or 2? Or, iow, "check == 0" is actually
> > equivalent to "check == 1" ?
>
> Hmm indeed, the comment in lockdep.h says 0 means no checks at all, but
> the code doesn't actually appear to work like that. I'm not sure it ever
> did or not, I'd have to go dig through history.
>
> That said, given the current state it certainly looks like we can remove
> the check argument.

Or yes, we can probably simply remove it. Unlikely we will need
lock_acquire(check => 0).

But this connects to lockdep_no_validate. Not sure I understand what
this class should actually do, but consider this code:

DEFINE_MUTEX(m1);
DEFINE_MUTEX(m2);
DEFINE_MUTEX(mx);

void lockdep_should_complain(void)
{
lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx);

// m1 -> mx -> m2
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_lock(&mx);
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&mx);
mutex_unlock(&m1);


// m2 -> m1 ; should trigger the warning
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
}

lockdep doesn't not detect the trivial possible deadlock.

The patch below seems to work but most probably it is not right, and
I forgot everything (not too much) I knew about lockdep internals.

Oleg.

--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1939,7 +1939,8 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
* Only non-recursive-read entries get new dependencies
* added:
*/
- if (hlock->read != 2) {
+ if (hlock->read != 2 &&
+ hlock->instance->key != &__lockdep_no_validate__) {
if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
distance, trylock_loop))
return 0;


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-09 19:01    [W:0.104 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site