From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 15/19] lockdep: merge the !_READ mark_lock_irq() helpers
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:37:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090122174053.556474458@chello.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20090122173701.674448070@chello.nl
[-- Attachment #1: lockdep-mark_irq5.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3562 bytes --]
These two are also remakably similar
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
kernel/lockdep.c | 58 ++++++++++++++-----------------------------------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -2056,31 +2056,39 @@ static int exclusive_bit(int new_bit)
return state | (dir ^ 2);
}
+typedef int (*check_usage_f)(struct task_struct *, struct held_lock *,
+ enum lock_usage_bit bit, const char *name);
+
static int
-mark_lock_irq_used_in(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
+mark_lock_irq_write(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
int new_bit)
{
const char *name = state_name(new_bit);
const char *rname = state_rname(new_bit);
int excl_bit = exclusive_bit(new_bit);
+ int dir = new_bit & 2;
+
+ check_usage_f usage = dir ?
+ check_usage_backwards : check_usage_forwards;
if (!valid_state(curr, this, new_bit, excl_bit))
return 0;
if (!valid_state(curr, this, new_bit, excl_bit + 1))
return 0;
+
/*
* just marked it hardirq-safe, check that this lock
* took no hardirq-unsafe lock in the past:
*/
- if (!check_usage_forwards(curr, this, excl_bit, name))
+ if (!usage(curr, this, excl_bit, name))
return 0;
#if STRICT_READ_CHECKS
/*
* just marked it hardirq-safe, check that this lock
* took no hardirq-unsafe-read lock in the past:
*/
- if (!check_usage_forwards(curr, this, excl_bit + 1, rname))
+ if (!usage(curr, this, excl_bit + 1, rname))
return 0;
#endif
if (state_verbose(new_bit, hlock_class(this)))
@@ -2124,40 +2132,6 @@ mark_lock_irq_read(struct task_struct *c
return 1;
}
-static int
-mark_lock_irq_enabled(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
- int new_bit)
-{
- const char *name = state_name(new_bit);
- const char *rname = state_rname(new_bit);
-
- int excl_bit = exclusive_bit(new_bit);
-
- if (!valid_state(curr, this, new_bit, excl_bit))
- return 0;
- if (!valid_state(curr, this, new_bit, excl_bit + 1))
- return 0;
- /*
- * just marked it hardirq-unsafe, check that no hardirq-safe
- * lock in the system ever took it in the past:
- */
- if (!check_usage_backwards(curr, this, excl_bit, name))
- return 0;
-#if STRICT_READ_CHECKS
- /*
- * just marked it hardirq-unsafe, check that no
- * hardirq-safe-read lock in the system ever took
- * it in the past:
- */
- if (!check_usage_backwards(curr, this, excl_bit + 1, rname))
- return 0;
-#endif
- if (state_verbose(new_bit, hlock_class(this)))
- return 2;
-
- return 1;
-}
-
static int mark_lock_irq(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
enum lock_usage_bit new_bit)
{
@@ -2167,7 +2141,10 @@ static int mark_lock_irq(struct task_str
case LOCK_USED_IN_HARDIRQ:
case LOCK_USED_IN_SOFTIRQ:
case LOCK_USED_IN_RECLAIM_FS:
- return mark_lock_irq_used_in(curr, this, new_bit);
+ case LOCK_ENABLED_HARDIRQ:
+ case LOCK_ENABLED_SOFTIRQ:
+ case LOCK_ENABLED_RECLAIM_FS:
+ return mark_lock_irq_write(curr, this, new_bit);
case LOCK_USED_IN_HARDIRQ_READ:
case LOCK_USED_IN_SOFTIRQ_READ:
@@ -2177,11 +2154,6 @@ static int mark_lock_irq(struct task_str
case LOCK_ENABLED_RECLAIM_FS_READ:
return mark_lock_irq_read(curr, this, new_bit);
- case LOCK_ENABLED_HARDIRQ:
- case LOCK_ENABLED_SOFTIRQ:
- case LOCK_ENABLED_RECLAIM_FS:
- return mark_lock_irq_enabled(curr, this, new_bit);
-
default:
WARN_ON(1);
break;
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-22 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-22 17:37 [RFC PATCH 00/19] lockdep series Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 01/19] lockdep: annotate reclaim context (__GFP_NOFS) Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 19:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 20:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-23 7:33 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-23 8:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-23 15:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 02/19] lockdep: sanitize bit names Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 03/19] lockdep: sanitize reclaim " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 04/19] lockdep: lockdep_states.h Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 05/19] lockdep: simplify mark_held_locks Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 06/19] lockdep: simplify mark_lock() Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 07/19] lockdep: move state bit definitions around Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 08/19] lockdep: generate the state bit definitions Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 09/19] lockdep: generate usage strings Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 10/19] lockdep: split up mark_lock_irq() Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 11/19] lockdep: simplify the mark_lock_irq() helpers Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 12/19] lockdep: further simplify " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 13/19] simplify mark_lock_irq() helpers #3 Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 14/19] lockdep: merge the _READ mark_lock_irq() helpers Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 16/19] lockdep: fully reduce mark_lock_irq() Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 17/19] lockdep: simplify get_user_chars() Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 18/19] lockdep: get_user_chars() redo Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-22 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 19/19] lockdep: simplify check_prev_add_irq() Peter Zijlstra
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=20090122174053.556474458@chello.nl \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/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