linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@me.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
	longman@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] locking/lockdep: Print possible warning after counting deps
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 21:45:49 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YNSMjZmuuuphg+aa@boqun-archlinux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210618145534.438816-4-sxwjean@me.com>

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 10:55:34PM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
> 
> The graph walk might hit error when counting dependencies. Once the
> return value is negative, print a warning to reminder users.
> 
> However, lockdep_unlock() would be called twice if we call print_bfs_bug()
> directly in __lockdep_count_*_deps(), so as the suggestion from Boqun:
> "
> Here print_bfs_bug() will eventually call debug_locks_off_graph_unlock()
> to release the graph lock, and the caller (lockdep_count_fowards_deps())
> will also call graph_unlock() afterwards, and that means we unlock
> *twice* if a BFS error happens... although in that case, lockdep should
> stop working so messing up with the graph lock may not hurt anything,
> but still, I don't think we want to do that.
> 
> So probably you can open-code __lockdep_count_forward_deps() into
> lockdep_count_forwards_deps(), and call print_bfs_bug() or
> graph_unlock() accordingly. The body of __lockdep_count_forward_deps()
> is really small, so I think it's OK to open-code it into its caller.
> "
> we put the code in __lockdep_count_*_deps() into lockdep_count_*_deps().
> 
> Suggested-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>

Thanks!

Regards,
Boqun

> ---
>  kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index cb94097014d8..c29453b1df50 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -2024,55 +2024,52 @@ static bool noop_count(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> -static unsigned long __lockdep_count_forward_deps(struct lock_list *this)
> -{
> -	unsigned long  count = 0;
> -	struct lock_list *target_entry;
> -
> -	__bfs_forwards(this, (void *)&count, noop_count, NULL, &target_entry);
> -
> -	return count;
> -}
>  unsigned long lockdep_count_forward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
>  {
> -	unsigned long ret, flags;
> +	unsigned long count = 0, flags;
>  	struct lock_list this;
> +	struct lock_list *target_entry;
> +	enum bfs_result result;
>  
>  	__bfs_init_root(&this, class);
>  
>  	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
>  	lockdep_lock();
> -	ret = __lockdep_count_forward_deps(&this);
> -	lockdep_unlock();
> -	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
>  
> -	return ret;
> -}
> +	result = __bfs_forwards(&this, (void *)&count, noop_count, NULL, &target_entry);
>  
> -static unsigned long __lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_list *this)
> -{
> -	unsigned long  count = 0;
> -	struct lock_list *target_entry;
> +	if (bfs_error(result))
> +		print_bfs_bug(result);
> +	else
> +		lockdep_unlock();
>  
> -	__bfs_backwards(this, (void *)&count, noop_count, NULL, &target_entry);
> +	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
>  
>  	return count;
>  }
>  
>  unsigned long lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
>  {
> -	unsigned long ret, flags;
> +	unsigned long  count = 0, flags;
>  	struct lock_list this;
> +	struct lock_list *target_entry;
> +	enum bfs_result result;
>  
>  	__bfs_init_root(&this, class);
>  
>  	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
>  	lockdep_lock();
> -	ret = __lockdep_count_backward_deps(&this);
> -	lockdep_unlock();
> +
> +	result = __bfs_backwards(&this, (void *)&count, noop_count, NULL, &target_entry);
> +
> +	if (bfs_error(result))
> +		print_bfs_bug(result);
> +	else
> +		lockdep_unlock();
> +
>  	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
>  
> -	return ret;
> +	return count;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-06-24 13:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-18 14:55 [PATCH v2 0/3] some improvements for lockdep Xiongwei Song
2021-06-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] locking/lockdep: Unlikely bfs_error() inside Xiongwei Song
2021-06-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] locking/lockdep: Unlikely conditons about BFS_RMATCH Xiongwei Song
2021-06-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] locking/lockdep: Print possible warning after counting deps Xiongwei Song
2021-06-24  8:03   ` Xiongwei Song
2021-06-24 13:45   ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2021-07-12  8:19 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] some improvements for lockdep Xiongwei Song

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=YNSMjZmuuuphg+aa@boqun-archlinux \
    --to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sxwjean@gmail.com \
    --cc=sxwjean@me.com \
    --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).