public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:21:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061219072134.GA1731@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061218143936.GA4415@elte.hu>

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 03:39:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > If any of this proposals should be omitted or separated let me know.
> 
> thanks for the fixes, they look good to me. I have reorganized the 
> __lock_acquire() changes a bit. Plus i dropped the check_locks_freed() 
> changes: there's no reason lockdep should be using 'raw' irq flags 
> saving - these functions are not part of the irq-flags tracing code so 
> they dont /need/ to be raw.

I'm not 100% convinced - now trace_hardirqs_off/on is 
done only for lockdep reasons, so it is like selfcheck.
But it's probably the matter of taste.

...
> Index: linux/kernel/lockdep.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/lockdep.c
> +++ linux/kernel/lockdep.c
...
> @@ -2210,19 +2214,24 @@ 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))
> +			return 0;
> +
>  	curr->lockdep_depth++;
>  	check_chain_key(curr);
>  	if (unlikely(curr->lockdep_depth >= MAX_LOCK_DEPTH)) {
> -		debug_locks_off();
> +		debug_locks_off_graph_unlock();
>  		printk("BUG: MAX_LOCK_DEPTH too low!\n");
>  		printk("turning off the locking correctness validator.\n");
>  		return 0;
>  	}
> +
>  	if (unlikely(curr->lockdep_depth > max_lockdep_depth))
>  		max_lockdep_depth = curr->lockdep_depth;
>  
> +	graph_unlock();
>  	return 1;
>  }

Sorry but it's not good... There could be no lock 
at all here (eg. trylock != 0 || check != 2). 

Jarek P.

  reply	other threads:[~2006-12-19  7:20 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 [this message]
2006-12-19  9:50   ` [patch] lockdep: more unlock-on-error fixes, fix Ingo Molnar
2006-12-19 13:22     ` Jarek Poplawski

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=20061219072134.GA1731@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox