[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190318085733.3143-19-duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:57:32 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org, will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org
Cc: bvanassche@....org, ming.lei@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 18/19] locking/lockdep: Update comments on dependency search
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@...il.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 90d58cc..1d38bf6 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1384,6 +1384,10 @@ static inline struct list_head *get_backward_dep(struct lock_list * lock)
return &lock->class->locks_before;
}
+/*
+ * 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),
@@ -1461,12 +1465,6 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list *src_entry, void *data,
}
/*
- * Recursive, forwards-direction lock-dependency checking, used for
- * both noncyclic checking and for hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe
- * checking.
- */
-
-/*
* Print a dependency chain entry (this is only done when a deadlock
* has been detected):
*/
@@ -2166,7 +2164,7 @@ static void print_deadlock_scenario(struct held_lock *nxt,
/*
* 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]
@@ -2216,11 +2214,12 @@ static void print_deadlock_scenario(struct held_lock *nxt,
/*
* 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists