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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox