From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933567AbeBVRrE (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:47:04 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:54100 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933498AbeBVRrB (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:47:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:46:54 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Boqun Feng Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrea Parri Subject: Re: [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 08/17] lockdep: Fix recursive read lock related safe->unsafe detection Message-ID: <20180222174654.GW25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180222070904.548-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com> <20180222070904.548-9-boqun.feng@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180222070904.548-9-boqun.feng@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:08:55PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > There are four cases for recursive read lock realted deadlocks: > > (--(X..Y)--> means a strong dependency path starts with a --(X*)--> > dependency and ends with a --(*Y)-- dependency.) > > 1. An irq-safe lock L1 has a dependency --(*..*)--> to an > irq-unsafe lock L2. > > 2. An irq-read-safe lock L1 has a dependency --(N..*)--> to an > irq-unsafe lock L2. > > 3. An irq-safe lock L1 has a dependency --(*..N)--> to an > irq-read-unsafe lock L2. > > 4. An irq-read-safe lock L1 has a dependency --(N..N)--> to an > irq-read-unsafe lock L2. > > The current check_usage() only checks 1) and 2), so this patch adds > checks for 3) and 4) and makes sure when find_usage_{back,for}wards find > an irq-read-{,un}safe lock, the traverse path should ends at a > dependency --(*N)-->. Note when we search backwards, --(*N)--> indicates > a real dependency --(N*)-->. This adds 4 __bfs() searches for every new link. Can't we make the existing traversals smarter?