[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1502089981-21272-3-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:12:49 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
kirill@...temov.name, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org,
npiggin@...il.com, kernel-team@....com
Subject: [PATCH v8 02/14] lockdep: Add a function building a chain between two classes
Crossrelease needs to build a chain between two classes regardless of
their contexts. However, add_chain_cache() cannot be used for that
purpose since it assumes that it's called in the acquisition context
of the hlock. So this patch introduces a new function doing it.
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 9260b40..9d16723 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2126,6 +2126,76 @@ static int check_no_collision(struct task_struct *curr,
}
/*
+ * This is for building a chain between just two different classes,
+ * instead of adding a new hlock upon current, which is done by
+ * add_chain_cache().
+ *
+ * This can be called in any context with two classes, while
+ * add_chain_cache() must be done within the lock owener's context
+ * since it uses hlock which might be racy in another context.
+ */
+static inline int add_chain_cache_classes(unsigned int prev,
+ unsigned int next,
+ unsigned int irq_context,
+ u64 chain_key)
+{
+ struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
+ struct lock_chain *chain;
+
+ /*
+ * Allocate a new chain entry from the static array, and add
+ * it to the hash:
+ */
+
+ /*
+ * We might need to take the graph lock, ensure we've got IRQs
+ * disabled to make this an IRQ-safe lock.. for recursion reasons
+ * lockdep won't complain about its own locking errors.
+ */
+ if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
+ return 0;
+
+ if (unlikely(nr_lock_chains >= MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS)) {
+ if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
+ return 0;
+
+ print_lockdep_off("BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!");
+ dump_stack();
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ chain = lock_chains + nr_lock_chains++;
+ chain->chain_key = chain_key;
+ chain->irq_context = irq_context;
+ chain->depth = 2;
+ if (likely(nr_chain_hlocks + chain->depth <= MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS)) {
+ chain->base = nr_chain_hlocks;
+ nr_chain_hlocks += chain->depth;
+ chain_hlocks[chain->base] = prev - 1;
+ chain_hlocks[chain->base + 1] = next -1;
+ }
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP
+ /*
+ * Important for check_no_collision().
+ */
+ else {
+ if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
+ return 0;
+
+ print_lockdep_off("BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!");
+ dump_stack();
+ return 0;
+ }
+#endif
+
+ hlist_add_head_rcu(&chain->entry, hash_head);
+ debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_misses);
+ inc_chains();
+
+ return 1;
+}
+
+/*
* Adds a dependency chain into chain hashtable. And must be called with
* graph_lock held.
*
--
1.9.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists