[PATCH 15/28] locking/lockdep: Update comments on dependency search

From: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org, ming.lei@redhat.com, frederic@kernel.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 15/28] locking/lockdep: Update comments on dependency search
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 18:19:21 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190424101934.51535-16-duyuyang@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190424101934.51535-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>

The breadth-first search is implemented as flat-out non-recursive now, but
the comments are still describing it as recursive, update the comments in
that regard.

Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 16f524c..d153b97 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1375,6 +1375,10 @@ static inline struct list_head *get_dep_list(struct lock_list *lock, int offset)
 	return lock_class + offset;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Forward- or backward-dependency search, used for both circular dependency
+ * checking and hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe checking.
+ */
 static int __bfs(struct lock_list *source_entry,
 		 void *data,
 		 int (*match)(struct lock_list *entry, void *data),
@@ -1455,12 +1459,6 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list *src_entry,
 
 }
 
-/*
- * Recursive, forwards-direction lock-dependency checking, used for
- * both noncyclic checking and for hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe
- * checking.
- */
-
 static void print_lock_trace(struct lock_trace *trace, unsigned int spaces)
 {
 	unsigned long *entries = stack_trace + trace->offset;
@@ -2182,7 +2180,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
 
 /*
  * There was a chain-cache miss, and we are about to add a new dependency
- * to a previous lock. We recursively validate the following rules:
+ * to a previous lock. We validate the following rules:
  *
  *  - would the adding of the <prev> -> <next> dependency create a
  *    circular dependency in the graph? [== circular deadlock]
@@ -2233,11 +2231,12 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
 	/*
 	 * Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
 	 * create a circular dependency in the graph. (We do this by
-	 * forward-recursing into the graph starting at <next>, and
-	 * checking whether we can reach <prev>.)
+	 * a breadth-first search into the graph starting at <next>,
+	 * which checks whether we can reach <prev>.)
 	 *
-	 * We are using global variables to control the recursion, to
-	 * keep the stackframe size of the recursive functions low:
+	 * The search is limited by the size of the circular queue (i.e.,
+	 * MAX_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_SIZE) which keeps track of a breadth of nodes
+	 * in the graph whose neighbours are to be checked.
 	 */
 	this.class = hlock_class(next);
 	this.parent = NULL;
-- 
1.8.3.1

