From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, seanjc@google.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH rcu 1/7] locking/lockdep: Introduce lock_sync()
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:13:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230317031339.10277-2-boqun.feng@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230317031339.10277-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Currently, functions like synchronize_srcu() do not have lockdep
annotations resembling those of other write-side locking primitives.
Such annotations might look as follows:
lock_acquire();
lock_release();
Such annotations would tell lockdep that synchronize_srcu() acts like
an empty critical section that waits for other (read-side) critical
sections to finish. This would definitely catch some deadlock, but
as pointed out by Paul Mckenney [1], this could also introduce false
positives because of irq-safe/unsafe detection. Of course, there are
tricks could help with this:
might_sleep(); // Existing statement in __synchronize_srcu().
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
local_irq_disable();
lock_acquire();
lock_release();
local_irq_enable();
}
But it would be better for lockdep to provide a separate annonation for
functions like synchronize_srcu(), so that people won't need to repeat
the ugly tricks above.
Therefore introduce lock_sync(), which is simply an lock+unlock
pair with no irq safe/unsafe deadlock check. This works because the
to-be-annontated functions do not create real critical sections, and
there is therefore no way that irq can create extra dependencies.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180412021233.ewncg5jjuzjw3x62@tardis/
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
---
include/linux/lockdep.h | 5 +++++
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
index 1023f349af71..14d9dbedc6c1 100644
--- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -268,6 +268,10 @@ extern void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
extern void lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned long ip);
+extern void lock_sync(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
+ int read, int check, struct lockdep_map *nest_lock,
+ unsigned long ip);
+
/* lock_is_held_type() returns */
#define LOCK_STATE_UNKNOWN -1
#define LOCK_STATE_NOT_HELD 0
@@ -554,6 +558,7 @@ do { \
#define lock_map_acquire_read(l) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, 0, 0, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
#define lock_map_acquire_tryread(l) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, 0, 1, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
#define lock_map_release(l) lock_release(l, _THIS_IP_)
+#define lock_map_sync(l) lock_sync(l, 0, 0, 1, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
# define might_lock(lock) \
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 50d4863974e7..36430cf8e407 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -5693,6 +5693,40 @@ void lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned long ip)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lock_release);
+/*
+ * lock_sync() - A special annotation for synchronize_{s,}rcu()-like API.
+ *
+ * No actual critical section is created by the APIs annotated with this: these
+ * APIs are used to wait for one or multiple critical sections (on other CPUs
+ * or threads), and it means that calling these APIs inside these critical
+ * sections is potential deadlock.
+ *
+ * This annotation acts as an acqurie+release anontation pair with hardirqoff
+ * being 1. Since there's no critical section, no interrupt can create extra
+ * dependencies "inside" the annotation, hardirqoff == 1 allows us to avoid
+ * false positives.
+ */
+void lock_sync(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned subclass, int read,
+ int check, struct lockdep_map *nest_lock, unsigned long ip)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled()))
+ return;
+
+ raw_local_irq_save(flags);
+ check_flags(flags);
+
+ lockdep_recursion_inc();
+ __lock_acquire(lock, subclass, 0, read, check, 1, nest_lock, ip, 0, 0);
+
+ if (__lock_release(lock, ip))
+ check_chain_key(current);
+ lockdep_recursion_finish();
+ raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lock_sync);
+
noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
{
unsigned long flags;
--
2.39.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-17 3:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-17 3:13 [PATCH rcu 0/7] RCU-related lockdep changes for v6.4 Boqun Feng
2023-03-17 3:13 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2023-03-20 17:06 ` [PATCH rcu 1/7] locking/lockdep: Introduce lock_sync() Davidlohr Bueso
2023-03-20 17:50 ` Boqun Feng
2023-03-17 3:13 ` [PATCH rcu 2/7] rcu: Annotate SRCU's update-side lockdep dependencies Boqun Feng
2023-03-17 3:13 ` [PATCH rcu 3/7] locking: Reduce the number of locks in ww_mutex stress tests Boqun Feng
2023-03-17 18:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-17 21:26 ` Boqun Feng
2023-03-17 3:13 ` [PATCH rcu 4/7] locking/lockdep: Improve the deadlock scenario print for sync and read lock Boqun Feng
2023-03-20 12:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-20 17:50 ` Boqun Feng
2023-03-17 3:13 ` [PATCH rcu 5/7] rcutorture: Add SRCU deadlock scenarios Boqun Feng
2023-03-17 3:13 ` [PATCH rcu 6/7] rcutorture: Add RCU Tasks Trace and " Boqun Feng
2023-03-17 3:13 ` [PATCH rcu 7/7] rcutorture: Add srcu_lockdep.sh Boqun Feng
2023-03-20 18:19 ` Boqun Feng
2023-03-20 19:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-20 19:28 ` Boqun Feng
2023-03-20 20:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-20 20:26 ` Boqun Feng
2023-03-20 20:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20230317031339.10277-2-boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.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