Re: [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 06/17] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read in check_noncircular()

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 06/17] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read in check_noncircular()
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:54:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180222145434.GS25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180222070904.548-7-boqun.feng@gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:08:53PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:

> +static inline int hlock_conflict(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct held_lock *hlock = (struct held_lock *)data;
> +
> +	return hlock_class(hlock) == entry->class &&
> +	       (hlock->read != 2 || !entry->is_rr);
> +}

Bah, brain hurts.

So before we add prev -> this, relation, we check if there's a this ->
prev relation already in the graph -- if so that would be a problem.

The above function has @data == @prev (__bfs_forward starts at @this,
looking for @prev), and the above patch augments the 'class_equal' test
with @prev not having read==2 or @entry not having xr;

This is because.... (insert brain hurt)