From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] lockdep: more unlock-on-error fixes, fix
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:22:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061219132209.GA4139@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061219095047.GA2694@elte.hu>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
> moving the graph unlock back, and by leaving the max_lockdep_depth
> variable update possibly racy. (we dont care, it's just statistics)
I would agree if it were not the lockdep.
I mean it's like the "father figure"!
> also add some minimal debugging code to graph_unlock()/graph_lock(),
> which caught this locking bug.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
> kernel/lockdep.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/kernel/lockdep.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/lockdep.c
> +++ linux/kernel/lockdep.c
> @@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ static int graph_lock(void)
>
> static inline int graph_unlock(void)
> {
> + if (debug_locks && !__raw_spin_is_locked(&lockdep_lock))
> + return DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1);
> +
> __raw_spin_unlock(&lockdep_lock);
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -716,6 +719,9 @@ find_usage_backwards(struct lock_class *
> struct lock_list *entry;
> int ret;
>
> + if (!__raw_spin_is_locked(&lockdep_lock))
> + return DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1);
> +
> if (depth > max_recursion_depth)
> max_recursion_depth = depth;
> if (depth >= RECURSION_LIMIT)
> @@ -2208,6 +2214,7 @@ out_calc_hash:
> if (!chain_head && ret != 2)
> if (!check_prevs_add(curr, hlock))
> return 0;
> + graph_unlock();
> } else
> /* after lookup_chain_cache(): */
> if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
Probably similar changes should be done in
debug_locks_off_graph_unlock() etc.
I think it's going slightly complicated - there is
hard to say where and when the lock is really on.
Maybe graph_lock needs some rethinking?
My proposal is to do unconditional locking in
graph_lock() and always check its return value e.g.:
if (!graph_lock()) {
graph_unlock();
return 0;
}
It is clear and gives some place for exceptions.
Jarek P.
PS: thanks for this followup_to info!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-19 13:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-18 11:56 [PATCH] lockdep: returns after DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ONs etc Jarek Poplawski
2006-12-18 14:39 ` [patch] lockdep: more unlock-on-error fixes Ingo Molnar
2006-12-19 7:21 ` Jarek Poplawski
2006-12-19 9:50 ` [patch] lockdep: more unlock-on-error fixes, fix Ingo Molnar
2006-12-19 13:22 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061219132209.GA4139@ff.dom.local \
--to=jarkao2@o2.pl \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.