From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933107AbeBVPQb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:16:31 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:56780 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932869AbeBVPQ3 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:16:29 -0500
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:16:26 +0100
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()
Message-ID: <20180222151626.GU25235@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180222070904.548-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20180222070904.548-7-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20180222145434.GS25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180222145434.GS25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:54:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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)

(hlock->read != 2 || !entry->have_xr) := !(hlock->read == 2 && entry->have_xr)

hlock->read == 2 := prev->read == 2
entry->have_xr means the last fwd link has read==2.

Together this gives that:

  @prev (Rx) ---> X ---> @entry (xR)

does not form a cycle, because:

  @enrty (xR) -> @prev (Rx)

is not strong and can be ignored.

Did I get that right? If so, the Changelog needs serious help and code
does too.