linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 07/17] lockdep: Adjust check_redundant() for recursive read change
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:29:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180222172906.GU25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180222070904.548-8-boqun.feng@gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:08:54PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> As we have four kinds of dependencies now, check_redundant() should only
> report redundant if we have a dependency path which is equal or
> _stronger_ than the current dependency. For example if in
> check_prev_add() we have:
> 
> 	prev->read == 2 && next->read != 2
> 
> , we should only report redundant if we find a path like:
> 
> 	prev--(RN)-->....--(*N)-->next
> 
> and if we have:
> 
> 	prev->read == 2 && next->read == 2
> 
> , we could report redundant if we find a path like:
> 
> 	prev--(RN)-->....--(*N)-->next
> 
> or
> 
> 	prev--(RN)-->....--(*R)-->next
> 
> To do so, we need to pass the recursive-read status of @next into
> check_redundant().

Very hard to read that.

> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index e1be088a34c4..0b0ad3db78b4 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -1338,9 +1338,12 @@ print_circular_bug_header(struct lock_list *entry, unsigned int depth,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static inline int class_equal(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
> +static inline int hlock_equal(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
>  {
> -	return entry->class == data;
> +	struct held_lock *hlock = (struct held_lock *)data;
> +
> +	return hlock_class(hlock) == entry->class &&
> +	       (hlock->read == 2 || !entry->is_rr);
>  }

So I guess @data = @next, and we're checking if @prev -> @next already
exists.

Since we only care about forward dependencies, @next->read==2 means *R
and if so, any existing link is equal or stronger. If @next->read!=2, it
means *N and we must regard *R as weaker and not match.

OK, that seems to be fine, but again, that function _really_ could do
with a comment.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-22 17:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-22  7:08 [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 00/17] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read locks Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 01/17] lockdep: Demagic the return value of BFS Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 02/17] lockdep: Make __bfs() visit every dependency until a match Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 03/17] lockdep: Redefine LOCK_*_STATE* bits Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 04/17] lockdep: Introduce lock_list::dep Boqun Feng
2018-02-23 11:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-23 12:37     ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-24  5:32       ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-24  6:30         ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-24  8:38           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-24  9:00             ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-24  9:26               ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-26  9:00                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-26 10:15                   ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-26 10:20                     ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-24  7:31         ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 05/17] lockdep: Extend __bfs() to work with multiple kinds of dependencies Boqun Feng
2018-02-22 14:26   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22 15:12     ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-22 15:30       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22 15:51         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22 16:31           ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-23  5:02             ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-23 11:15               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22 16:08       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22 16:34         ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-22 16:32           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 06/17] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read in check_noncircular() Boqun Feng
2018-02-22 14:54   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22 15:16     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22 15:44       ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 07/17] lockdep: Adjust check_redundant() for recursive read change Boqun Feng
2018-02-22 17:29   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-03-16  8:20     ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 08/17] lockdep: Fix recursive read lock related safe->unsafe detection Boqun Feng
2018-02-22 17:41   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22 17:46   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-23  8:21     ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-23  8:58       ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-23 11:36         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 09/17] lockdep: Add recursive read locks into dependency graph Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 10/17] lockdep/selftest: Add a R-L/L-W test case specific to chain cache behavior Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 11/17] lockdep: Take read/write status in consideration when generate chainkey Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:08 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 12/17] lockdep/selftest: Unleash irq_read_recursion2 and add more Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:09 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 13/17] lockdep/selftest: Add more recursive read related test cases Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:09 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 14/17] Revert "locking/lockdep/selftests: Fix mixed read-write ABBA tests" Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:09 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 15/17] lockdep: Reduce the size of lock_list Boqun Feng
2018-02-23 11:38   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-23 12:40     ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:09 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 16/17] lockdep: Documention for recursive read lock detection reasoning Boqun Feng
2018-02-24 22:53   ` Andrea Parri
2018-02-27  2:32     ` Boqun Feng
2018-02-22  7:09 ` [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 17/17] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as a LOCKING PRIMITIVES reviewer Boqun Feng

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180222172906.GU25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).