linux-kernel - [PATCH] lockdep: change scheduler annotation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:26:57 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: change scheduler annotation

While thinking about David's patch it _finally_ dawned on me that there
is no reason we have a lock class per cpu..

Sorry for being dense :-/

The below changes the annotation from a lock class per cpu, to a single
nested lock, as the scheduler never holds more that 2 rq locks at a time
anyway.

If there was code requiring holding all rq locks this would not work and
the original annotation would be the only option, but that not being the
case, this is a much lighter one.

Compiles and boots on a 2-way x86_64.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
 kernel/sched.c |   10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -600,7 +600,6 @@ struct rq {
 	/* BKL stats */
 	unsigned int bkl_count;
 #endif
-	struct lock_class_key rq_lock_key;
 };
 
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct rq, runqueues);
@@ -2759,10 +2758,10 @@ static void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq
 	} else {
 		if (rq1 < rq2) {
 			spin_lock(&rq1->lock);
-			spin_lock(&rq2->lock);
+			spin_lock_nested(&rq2->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 		} else {
 			spin_lock(&rq2->lock);
-			spin_lock(&rq1->lock);
+			spin_lock_nested(&rq1->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 		}
 	}
 	update_rq_clock(rq1);
@@ -2805,10 +2804,10 @@ static int double_lock_balance(struct rq
 		if (busiest < this_rq) {
 			spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
 			spin_lock(&busiest->lock);
-			spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
+			spin_lock_nested(&this_rq->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 			ret = 1;
 		} else
-			spin_lock(&busiest->lock);
+			spin_lock_nested(&busiest->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 	}
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -8000,7 +7999,6 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
 
 		rq = cpu_rq(i);
 		spin_lock_init(&rq->lock);
-		lockdep_set_class(&rq->lock, &rq->rq_lock_key);
 		rq->nr_running = 0;
 		init_cfs_rq(&rq->cfs, rq);
 		init_rt_rq(&rq->rt, rq);


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/