[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180222174654.GW25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:46:54 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 08/17] lockdep: Fix recursive read
lock related safe->unsafe detection
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:08:55PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> There are four cases for recursive read lock realted deadlocks:
>
> (--(X..Y)--> means a strong dependency path starts with a --(X*)-->
> dependency and ends with a --(*Y)-- dependency.)
>
> 1. An irq-safe lock L1 has a dependency --(*..*)--> to an
> irq-unsafe lock L2.
>
> 2. An irq-read-safe lock L1 has a dependency --(N..*)--> to an
> irq-unsafe lock L2.
>
> 3. An irq-safe lock L1 has a dependency --(*..N)--> to an
> irq-read-unsafe lock L2.
>
> 4. An irq-read-safe lock L1 has a dependency --(N..N)--> to an
> irq-read-unsafe lock L2.
>
> The current check_usage() only checks 1) and 2), so this patch adds
> checks for 3) and 4) and makes sure when find_usage_{back,for}wards find
> an irq-read-{,un}safe lock, the traverse path should ends at a
> dependency --(*N)-->. Note when we search backwards, --(*N)--> indicates
> a real dependency --(N*)-->.
This adds 4 __bfs() searches for every new link.
Can't we make the existing traversals smarter?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists