The sequence
static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(test_ww_class);
struct ww_acquire_ctx ww_ctx;
struct ww_mutex ww_lock_a;
struct ww_mutex ww_lock_b;
struct ww_mutex ww_lock_c;
struct mutex lock_c;
ww_acquire_init(&ww_ctx, &test_ww_class);
ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_a, &test_ww_class);
ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_b, &test_ww_class);
ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_c, &test_ww_class);
mutex_init(&lock_c);
ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_a, &ww_ctx);
mutex_lock(&lock_c);
ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_b, &ww_ctx);
ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_c, &ww_ctx);
mutex_unlock(&lock_c); (*)
ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_c);
ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_b);
ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_a);
ww_acquire_fini(&ww_ctx); (**)
will trigger the following error in __lock_release() when calling
mutex_release() at **:
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(depth <= 0)
The problem is that the hlock merging happening at * updates the
references for test_ww_class incorrectly to 3 whereas it should've
updated it to 4 (representing all the instances for ww_ctx and
ww_lock_[abc]).
Fix this by updating the references during merging correctly taking into
account that we can have non-zero references (both for the hlock that we
merge into another hlock or for the hlock we are merging into).
Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?q?Ville=20Syrj=C3=A4l=C3=A4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190524201509.9199-2-imre.deak@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
The sequence
static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(test_ww_class);
struct ww_acquire_ctx ww_ctx;
struct ww_mutex ww_lock_a;
struct ww_mutex ww_lock_b;
struct mutex lock_c;
struct mutex lock_d;
ww_acquire_init(&ww_ctx, &test_ww_class);
ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_a, &test_ww_class);
ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_b, &test_ww_class);
mutex_init(&lock_c);
ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_a, &ww_ctx);
mutex_lock(&lock_c);
ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_b, &ww_ctx);
mutex_unlock(&lock_c); (*)
ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_b);
ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_a);
ww_acquire_fini(&ww_ctx);
triggers the following WARN in __lock_release() when doing the unlock at *:
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth - 1);
The problem is that the WARN check doesn't take into account the merging
of ww_lock_a and ww_lock_b which results in decreasing curr->lockdep_depth
by 2 not only 1.
Note that the following sequence doesn't trigger the WARN, since there
won't be any hlock merging.
ww_acquire_init(&ww_ctx, &test_ww_class);
ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_a, &test_ww_class);
ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_b, &test_ww_class);
mutex_init(&lock_c);
mutex_init(&lock_d);
ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_a, &ww_ctx);
mutex_lock(&lock_c);
mutex_lock(&lock_d);
ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_b, &ww_ctx);
mutex_unlock(&lock_d);
ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_b);
ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_a);
mutex_unlock(&lock_c);
ww_acquire_fini(&ww_ctx);
In general both of the above two sequences are valid and shouldn't
trigger any lockdep warning.
Fix this by taking the decrement due to the hlock merging into account
during lock release and hlock class re-setting. Merging can't happen
during lock downgrading since there won't be a new possibility to merge
hlocks in that case, so add a WARN if merging still happens then.
Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190524201509.9199-1-imre.deak@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
In mark_lock_irq(), the following checks are performed:
----------------------------------
| -> | unsafe | read unsafe |
|----------------------------------|
| safe | F B | F* B* |
|----------------------------------|
| read safe | F? B* | - |
----------------------------------
Where:
F: check_usage_forwards
B: check_usage_backwards
*: check enabled by STRICT_READ_CHECKS
?: check enabled by the !dir condition
From checking point of view, the special F? case does not make sense,
whereas it perhaps is made for peroformance concern. As later patch will
address this issue, remove this exception, which makes the checks
consistent later.
With STRICT_READ_CHECKS = 1 which is default, there is no functional
change.
Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org
Cc: frederic@kernel.org
Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190506081939.74287-24-duyuyang@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
As Peter has put it all sound and complete for the cause, I simply quote:
"It (check_redundant) was added for cross-release (which has since been
reverted) which would generate a lot of redundant links (IIRC) but
having it makes the reports more convoluted -- basically, if we had an
A-B-C relation, then A-C will not be added to the graph because it is
already covered. This then means any report will include B, even though
a shorter cycle might have been possible."
This would increase the number of direct dependencies. For a simple workload
(make clean; reboot; make vmlinux -j8), the data looks like this:
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SMALL: direct dependencies: 6926
!CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SMALL: direct dependencies: 9052 (+30.7%)
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org
Cc: frederic@kernel.org
Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190506081939.74287-21-duyuyang@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
held_lock->class_idx is used to point to the class of the held lock. The
index is shifted by 1 to make index 0 mean no class, which results in class
index shifting back and forth but is not worth doing so.
The reason is: (1) there will be no "no-class" held_lock to begin with, and
(2) index 0 seems to be used for error checking, but if something wrong
indeed happened, the index can't be counted on to distinguish it as that
something won't set the class_idx to 0 on purpose to tell us it is wrong.
Therefore, change the index to start from 0. This saves a lot of
back-and-forth shifts and a class slot back to lock_classes.
Since index 0 is now used for lock class, we change the initial chain key to
-1 to avoid key collision, which is due to the fact that __jhash_mix(0, 0, 0) = 0.
Actually, the initial chain key can be any arbitrary value other than 0.
In addition, a bitmap is maintained to keep track of the used lock classes,
and we check the validity of the held lock against that bitmap.
Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org
Cc: frederic@kernel.org
Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190506081939.74287-10-duyuyang@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
