Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock()

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com>]

From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com>

Lockdep can't recognize if spinlocks are at a different address. So
trylock avoids lockdep to generate false positives. After lockdep will
be fixed this change can and should be reverted.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com>
---

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 07:27:28PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I can reproduce this now yes after a 'make sync'.

(btw it's not like I forgot to sync, but I sync against the wrong
source tree previously because it was in the bash history, it's a bit
complicate to explain)

> I assume it can't understand the spinlock address is different (I
> think it uses the address as key only for static locks), so I wonder
> if you could call print_deadlock_bug() from the failure path of the
> spinlock to solve this?

In the meantime (as I doubt lockdep will get fixed any time soon) this
will workaround it.

diff -r 3469dce61df1 mm/mmap.c
--- a/mm/mmap.c	Tue Jul 29 20:01:28 2008 +0200
+++ b/mm/mmap.c	Mon Aug 04 19:41:53 2008 +0200
@@ -2279,8 +2279,13 @@ static void vm_lock_anon_vma(struct anon
 		/*
 		 * The LSB of head.next can't change from under us
 		 * because we hold the mm_all_locks_mutex.
+		 *
+		 * spin_lock would confuse lockdep who can't
+		 * differentiate between the 'mapping' always changing
+		 * address.
 		 */
-		spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
+		while (!spin_trylock(&anon_vma->lock))
+			cpu_relax();
 		/*
 		 * We can safely modify head.next after taking the
 		 * anon_vma->lock. If some other vma in this mm shares
@@ -2310,7 +2315,13 @@ static void vm_lock_mapping(struct addre
 		 */
 		if (test_and_set_bit(AS_MM_ALL_LOCKS, &mapping->flags))
 			BUG();
-		spin_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_lock);
+		/*
+		 * spin_lock would confuse lockdep who can't
+		 * differentiate between the 'mapping' always changing
+		 * address.
+		 */
+		while (!spin_trylock(&mapping->i_mmap_lock))
+			cpu_relax();
 	}
 }