From: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
"Matthew Auld" <matthew.auld@intel.com>,
"Matthew Brost" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Waiman Long" <longman@redhat.com>,
"Sumit Semwal" <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] kernel/locking/ww_mutex: Add per-lock lock-check helpers
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 12:03:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251120110341.2425-2-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251120110341.2425-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Code using ww_mutexes typically by design have a number of
such mutexes sharing the same ww_class, and within a ww transaction
they are all lockdep annotated using a nest_lock which means
that multiple ww_mutexes of the same lockdep class may be locked at
the same time. That means that lock_is_held() returns true and
lockdep_assert_held() doesn't fire as long as there is a *single*
ww_mutex held of the same class. IOW within a WW transaction.
Code using these mutexes typically want to assert that individual
ww_mutexes are held. Not that any ww_mutex of the same class is
held.
Introduce functions that can be used for that.
RFC: Placement of the functions? lockdep.c? Are the #ifdefs testing for
the correct config?
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
---
include/linux/ww_mutex.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 10 ++++++++++
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
index 45ff6f7a872b..7bc0f533dea6 100644
--- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
@@ -380,4 +380,22 @@ static inline bool ww_mutex_is_locked(struct ww_mutex *lock)
return ww_mutex_base_is_locked(&lock->base);
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
+
+bool ww_mutex_held(struct ww_mutex *lock);
+
+#else /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
+
+static inline bool ww_mutex_held(struct ww_mutex *lock)
+{
+ return true;
+}
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
+
+static inline void ww_mutex_assert_held(struct ww_mutex *lock)
+{
+ lockdep_assert(ww_mutex_held(lock));
+}
+
#endif
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index de7d6702cd96..37868b739efd 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -1174,3 +1174,13 @@ int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock)
return 1;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
+
+bool ww_mutex_held(struct ww_mutex *lock)
+{
+ return __ww_mutex_owner(&lock->base) == current;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(ww_mutex_held);
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
--
2.51.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-20 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-20 11:03 [RFC PATCH 0/2] locking/ww_mutex, dma-buf/dma-resv: Improve detection of unheld locks Thomas Hellström
2025-11-20 11:03 ` Thomas Hellström [this message]
2025-11-20 11:38 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] kernel/locking/ww_mutex: Add per-lock lock-check helpers Peter Zijlstra
2025-11-20 11:03 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] dma-buf/dma-resv: Improve the dma-resv lockdep checks Thomas Hellström
2025-11-20 13:22 ` Christian König
2025-11-20 12:59 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for locking/ww_mutex, dma-buf/dma-resv: Improve detection of unheld locks Patchwork
2025-11-20 13:01 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2025-11-20 13:19 ` ✗ CI.checksparse: warning " Patchwork
2025-11-20 13:47 ` ✗ Xe.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2025-11-20 16:23 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: " Patchwork
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=20251120110341.2425-2-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--to=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sumit.semwal@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).