From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC/PATCH PATCH 2/6] lockdep: Remove strict read checks.
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:09:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090511123935.31159.74518.stgit@sofia.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090511122936.31159.44531.stgit@sofia.in.ibm.com>
Read locks would cause IRQ inversion problems only when they're being taken in
a IRQ context. So, except for this case, skip the strict read checks for every
other case.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
---
kernel/lockdep.c | 13 +++++++------
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
index 8d3c2b5..597479a 100644
--- a/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -1986,8 +1986,6 @@ static int RECLAIM_FS_verbose(struct lock_class *class)
return 0;
}
-#define STRICT_READ_CHECKS 1
-
static int (*state_verbose_f[])(struct lock_class *class) = {
#define LOCKDEP_STATE(__STATE) \
__STATE##_verbose,
@@ -2032,9 +2030,13 @@ mark_lock_irq(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
/*
* Validate that the lock dependencies don't have conflicting usage
* states.
+ *
+ * Skip the part if it's a read_lock with LOCK_ENABLED_XXX.
+ * We'll do that check when a write variant of the same lock is taken,
+ * or we take the read variant of lock in the LOCK_USED_IN_XXX state.
*/
- if ((!read || !dir || STRICT_READ_CHECKS) &&
- !usage(curr, this, excl_bit, state_name(new_bit & ~1)))
+ if (!(read && dir) && !usage(curr, this, excl_bit,
+ state_name(new_bit & ~1)))
return 0;
/*
@@ -2044,8 +2046,7 @@ mark_lock_irq(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
if (!valid_state(curr, this, new_bit, excl_bit + 1))
return 0;
- if (STRICT_READ_CHECKS &&
- !usage(curr, this, excl_bit + 1,
+ if (!usage(curr, this, excl_bit + 1,
state_name(new_bit + 1)))
return 0;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-11 12:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-11 12:39 [RFC/PATCH 0/6] lockdep: Maintain read/write states for lock_acquires Gautham R Shenoy
2009-05-11 12:39 ` [RFC/PATCH PATCH 1/6] lockdep: Remove redundant read checks Gautham R Shenoy
2009-05-11 12:39 ` Gautham R Shenoy [this message]
2009-05-11 12:39 ` [RFC/PATCH PATCH 3/6] lockdep: Annotate Read/write states Gautham R Shenoy
2009-05-11 12:39 ` [RFC/PATCH PATCH 4/6] lockdep: Seperate lock ids for read/write acquires Gautham R Shenoy
2009-05-11 12:39 ` [RFC/PATCH PATCH 5/6] lockdep: Maintain rw_state entries in locklist Gautham R Shenoy
2009-05-11 12:39 ` [RFC/PATCH PATCH 6/6] lockdep: Consider the rw_state of lock while validating the chain Gautham R Shenoy
2009-05-11 13:09 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/6] lockdep: Maintain read/write states for lock_acquires 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=20090511123935.31159.74518.stgit@sofia.in.ibm.com \
--to=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
/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