[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190506081939.74287-16-duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 16:19:31 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org, will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org
Cc: bvanassche@....org, ming.lei@...hat.com, frederic@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 15/23] 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 15cf2ac..7bd62e2 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1376,6 +1376,10 @@ static inline struct list_head *get_dep_list(struct lock_list *lock, int offset)
return lock_class + offset;
}
+/*
+ * 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),
@@ -1456,12 +1460,6 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list *src_entry,
}
-/*
- * Recursive, forwards-direction lock-dependency checking, used for
- * both noncyclic checking and for hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe
- * checking.
- */
-
static void print_lock_trace(struct lock_trace *trace, unsigned int spaces)
{
unsigned long *entries = stack_trace + trace->offset;
@@ -2280,7 +2278,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
/*
* 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]
@@ -2330,11 +2328,12 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
/*
* 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>,
+ * and check 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