lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[tip: locking/core] locking/locktorture: Fix false positive circular locking splat in ww_mutex test
The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:

Commit-ID: 2ea55bbba23e9d36996299664d618393c8602646
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/2ea55bbba23e9d36996299664d618393c8602646
Author: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
AuthorDate: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:28:11 -04:00
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitterDate: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:13:09 +01:00

locking/locktorture: Fix false positive circular locking splat in ww_mutex test

In order to avoid false positive circular locking lockdep splat
when runnng the ww_mutex torture test, we need to make sure that
the ww_mutexes have the same lock class as the acquire_ctx. This
means the ww_mutexes must have the same lockdep key as the
acquire_ctx. Unfortunately the current DEFINE_WW_MUTEX() macro fails
to do that. As a result, we add an init method for the ww_mutex test
to do explicit ww_mutex_init()'s of the ww_mutexes to avoid the false
positive warning.

Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210318172814.4400-3-longman@redhat.com
---
kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
index 0ab94e1..3c27f43 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
@@ -357,10 +357,20 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops mutex_lock_ops = {
};

#include <linux/ww_mutex.h>
+/*
+ * The torture ww_mutexes should belong to the same lock class as
+ * torture_ww_class to avoid lockdep problem. The ww_mutex_init()
+ * function is called for initialization to ensure that.
+ */
static DEFINE_WD_CLASS(torture_ww_class);
-static DEFINE_WW_MUTEX(torture_ww_mutex_0, &torture_ww_class);
-static DEFINE_WW_MUTEX(torture_ww_mutex_1, &torture_ww_class);
-static DEFINE_WW_MUTEX(torture_ww_mutex_2, &torture_ww_class);
+static struct ww_mutex torture_ww_mutex_0, torture_ww_mutex_1, torture_ww_mutex_2;
+
+static void torture_ww_mutex_init(void)
+{
+ ww_mutex_init(&torture_ww_mutex_0, &torture_ww_class);
+ ww_mutex_init(&torture_ww_mutex_1, &torture_ww_class);
+ ww_mutex_init(&torture_ww_mutex_2, &torture_ww_class);
+}

static int torture_ww_mutex_lock(void)
__acquires(torture_ww_mutex_0)
@@ -418,6 +428,7 @@ __releases(torture_ww_mutex_2)
}

static struct lock_torture_ops ww_mutex_lock_ops = {
+ .init = torture_ww_mutex_init,
.writelock = torture_ww_mutex_lock,
.write_delay = torture_mutex_delay,
.task_boost = torture_boost_dummy,
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-19 13:56    [W:0.111 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site