From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Subject: [RFC v7 09/19] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read locks in check_noncircular()
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:42:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200807074238.1632519-10-boqun.feng@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200807074238.1632519-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Currently, lockdep only has limit support for deadlock detection for
recursive read locks.
This patch support deadlock detection for recursive read locks. The
basic idea is:
We are about to add dependency B -> A in to the dependency graph, we use
check_noncircular() to find whether we have a strong dependency path
A -> .. -> B so that we have a strong dependency circle (a closed strong
dependency path):
A -> .. -> B -> A
, which doesn't have two adjacent dependencies as -(*R)-> L -(S*)->.
Since A -> .. -> B is already a strong dependency path, so if either
B -> A is -(E*)-> or A -> .. -> B is -(*N)->, the circle A -> .. -> B ->
A is strong, otherwise not. So we introduce a new match function
hlock_conflict() to replace the class_equal() for the deadlock check in
check_noncircular().
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 62f7f88e3673..e5b2c1cf4286 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1838,10 +1838,37 @@ static inline bool class_equal(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
return entry->class == data;
}
+/*
+ * We are about to add B -> A into the dependency graph, and in __bfs() a
+ * strong dependency path A -> .. -> B is found: hlock_class equals
+ * entry->class.
+ *
+ * We will have a deadlock case (conflict) if A -> .. -> B -> A is a strong
+ * dependency cycle, that means:
+ *
+ * Either
+ *
+ * a) B -> A is -(E*)->
+ *
+ * or
+ *
+ * b) A -> .. -> B is -(*N)-> (i.e. A -> .. -(*N)-> B)
+ *
+ * as then we don't have -(*R)-> -(S*)-> in the cycle.
+ */
+static inline bool hlock_conflict(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
+{
+ struct held_lock *hlock = (struct held_lock *)data;
+
+ return hlock_class(hlock) == entry->class && /* Found A -> .. -> B */
+ (hlock->read == 0 || /* B -> A is -(E*)-> */
+ !entry->only_xr); /* A -> .. -> B is -(*N)-> */
+}
+
static noinline void print_circular_bug(struct lock_list *this,
- struct lock_list *target,
- struct held_lock *check_src,
- struct held_lock *check_tgt)
+ struct lock_list *target,
+ struct held_lock *check_src,
+ struct held_lock *check_tgt)
{
struct task_struct *curr = current;
struct lock_list *parent;
@@ -1950,13 +1977,13 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
* <target> or not.
*/
static noinline enum bfs_result
-check_path(struct lock_class *target, struct lock_list *src_entry,
+check_path(struct held_lock *target, struct lock_list *src_entry,
+ bool (*match)(struct lock_list *entry, void *data),
struct lock_list **target_entry)
{
enum bfs_result ret;
- ret = __bfs_forwards(src_entry, (void *)target, class_equal,
- target_entry);
+ ret = __bfs_forwards(src_entry, target, match, target_entry);
if (unlikely(bfs_error(ret)))
print_bfs_bug(ret);
@@ -1983,7 +2010,7 @@ check_noncircular(struct held_lock *src, struct held_lock *target,
debug_atomic_inc(nr_cyclic_checks);
- ret = check_path(hlock_class(target), &src_entry, &target_entry);
+ ret = check_path(target, &src_entry, hlock_conflict, &target_entry);
if (unlikely(ret == BFS_RMATCH)) {
if (!*trace) {
@@ -2021,7 +2048,7 @@ check_redundant(struct held_lock *src, struct held_lock *target)
debug_atomic_inc(nr_redundant_checks);
- ret = check_path(hlock_class(target), &src_entry, &target_entry);
+ ret = check_path(target, &src_entry, class_equal, &target_entry);
if (ret == BFS_RMATCH)
debug_atomic_inc(nr_redundant);
--
2.28.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-07 7:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-07 7:42 [RFC v7 00/19] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read locks Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 01/19] locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock() Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 02/19] lockdep/Documention: Recursive read lock detection reasoning Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 03/19] lockdep: Demagic the return value of BFS Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 04/19] lockdep: Make __bfs() visit every dependency until a match Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 05/19] lockdep: Reduce the size of lock_list::distance Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 06/19] lockdep: Introduce lock_list::dep Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 07/19] lockdep: Extend __bfs() to work with multiple types of dependencies Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 08/19] lockdep: Make __bfs(.match) return bool Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read locks in check_noncircular() tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 10/19] lockdep: Adjust check_redundant() for recursive read change Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 11/19] lockdep: Fix recursive read lock related safe->unsafe detection Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-09-15 18:32 ` [RFC v7 11/19] " Qian Cai
2020-09-16 8:10 ` Boqun Feng
2020-09-16 16:14 ` Boqun Feng
2020-09-16 21:11 ` Qian Cai
2020-09-17 1:53 ` Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 12/19] lockdep: Add recursive read locks into dependency graph Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-09-14 18:16 ` [RFC v7 12/19] " Qian Cai
2020-09-14 22:04 ` Qian Cai
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 13/19] lockdep/selftest: Add a R-L/L-W test case specific to chain cache behavior Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 14/19] lockdep: Take read/write status in consideration when generate chainkey Boqun Feng
2020-08-21 17:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-22 2:52 ` boqun.feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 15/19] lockdep/selftest: Unleash irq_read_recursion2 and add more Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 16/19] lockdep/selftest: Add more recursive read related test cases Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 17/19] Revert "locking/lockdep/selftests: Fix mixed read-write ABBA tests" Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 18/19] locking/selftest: Add test cases for queued_read_lock() Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-07 7:42 ` [RFC v7 19/19] lockdep/selftest: Introduce recursion3 Boqun Feng
2020-08-27 7:54 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-08-21 19:56 ` [RFC v7 00/19] lockdep: Support deadlock detection for recursive read locks Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-23 1:12 ` 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=20200807074238.1632519-10-boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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).