From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] locking/lockdep: Reuse freed chain_hlocks entries
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 09:03:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c3e01215-bb1c-e22a-32e3-f01e2e96584a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200205094838.GI14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 2/5/20 4:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:57:09AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> Wait, it is possible that we can have deadlock like this:
>>
>> cpu 0 cpu 1
>> ----- -----
>> lock A lock B
>> <irq> <irq>
>> lock B lock A
>>
>> If we eliminate 1-entry chain, will that impact our ability to detect this
>> kind of deadlock?
> I'm thinking that should trigger irq-inversion (irq-on vs in-irq) on
> either A or B (depending on timing).
>
> AFAICT the irq-state tracking is outside of validate_chain().
>
> This is also why I think your separate_irq_context() change is not
> needed.
>
> validate_chain() really only checks the per-context lock nesting, and
> there, a single lock doesn't do very much. Hence my proposed patch.
>
I see. Then it may be OK. I will take a further look just to be sure.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-05 14:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-03 16:41 [PATCH v5 0/7] locking/lockdep: Reuse zapped chain_hlocks entries Waiman Long
2020-02-03 16:41 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] locking/lockdep: Decrement irq context counters when removing lock chain Waiman Long
2020-02-03 16:41 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] locking/lockdep: Display irq_context names in /proc/lockdep_chains Waiman Long
2020-02-03 16:41 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] locking/lockdep: Track number of zapped classes Waiman Long
2020-02-03 16:41 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] locking/lockdep: Throw away all lock chains with zapped class Waiman Long
2020-02-03 16:41 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] locking/lockdep: Track number of zapped lock chains Waiman Long
2020-02-03 16:41 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] locking/lockdep: Reuse freed chain_hlocks entries Waiman Long
2020-02-04 12:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-04 14:54 ` Waiman Long
2020-02-04 16:45 ` Waiman Long
2020-02-05 9:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-05 13:59 ` Waiman Long
2020-02-04 15:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-04 16:12 ` Waiman Long
2020-02-04 16:26 ` Waiman Long
2020-02-04 16:57 ` Waiman Long
2020-02-05 9:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-05 14:03 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2020-02-03 16:41 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] locking/lockdep: Add a fast path for chain_hlocks allocation Waiman Long
2020-02-04 12:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-04 15:07 ` Waiman Long
2020-02-04 13:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-04 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-04 18:02 ` Waiman Long
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=c3e01215-bb1c-e22a-32e3-f01e2e96584a@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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).