From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] lockdep: Seperate lock ids for read/write acquires
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:45:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110417095507.123045423@chello.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20110417094505.865828233@chello.nl
[-- Attachment #1: gautham_r_shenoy-lockdep-seperate_lock_ids_for_read_write.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4522 bytes --]
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
In order to support recursive read locks we need to support the
previously mentioned lock state conflict matrix:
Conflicting_states(WRITE): RECURSIVE_READ | READ | WRITE
Conflicting_states(READ): READ | WRITE
Conflicting_states(RECURSIVE_READ): WRITE
Since this introduces asymmetry between recursive read and write, we
need to split the lock dependency chains such that we can traverse
WRITE chains without observing RECURSIVE_READ|READ chains.
Previously we didn't distinguish between the read/write acquire of a
particular lock, thus we get the same key's for two different chains
involving the same locks in the same dependency order, but in
different read/write states.
For example:
lock(A) ---> Rlock(B)
lock(A) ---> Wlock(B)
Will overlap and produce a single chain. This is fine for the
symmetric conflict states of exlusive locks (trivial, WRITE exludes
WRITE) and fair read/write locks (note that both READ and WRITE
exclude each other), but is not sufficient for the reader preferenced
read/write lock since the recursive read state does not exclude
itself.
The implementation is straight forward since the key of a dependency
chain is obtained from the keys of the locks involved in the
dependency chains. The keys of the locks are defined as their
lock_class id's.
By changing this to distinguishing between the read/write acquires of
a lock by defining the lock's key as follows:
class_id + is_read_lock(lock) * MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS
We gain the proposed split and thus for the purpose of chain key
calculation a lock's key can be in the range 1 to 2*MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS-1.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
include/linux/lockdep.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
kernel/lockdep.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/lockdep.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ struct lock_chain {
};
#define MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS 13
+
/*
* Subtract one because we offset hlock->class_idx by 1 in order
* to make 0 mean no class. This avoids overflowing the class_idx
@@ -193,6 +194,19 @@ struct lock_chain {
*/
#define MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS ((1UL << MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS) - 1)
+/*
+ * A lock's class id is used to calculate the chain-key. Since we need to
+ * differentiate between the chains which contain the read acquire of
+ * a lock from the chains having write acquire of the same lock,
+ * we offset the class_idx by MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS if it is a read acquire.
+ *
+ * Thus the the lock's key during a chain-key calculation can be in the range
+ * 1 to 2 * MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS - 1.
+ *
+ * LOCKDEP_CHAIN_KEY_BITS holds the number of bits required to
+ * represent this range.
+ */
+#define LOCKDEP_CHAIN_KEY_BITS (MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS + 1)
struct held_lock {
/*
* One-way hash of the dependency chain up to this point. We
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -303,8 +303,8 @@ static struct list_head chainhash_table[
* unique.
*/
#define iterate_chain_key(key1, key2) \
- (((key1) << MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS) ^ \
- ((key1) >> (64-MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS_BITS)) ^ \
+ (((key1) << LOCKDEP_CHAIN_KEY_BITS) ^ \
+ ((key1) >> (64 - LOCKDEP_CHAIN_KEY_BITS)) ^ \
(key2))
void lockdep_off(void)
@@ -1988,6 +1988,9 @@ static void check_chain_key(struct task_
if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(id >= MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS))
return;
+ if (is_read(hlock->rw_state))
+ id += MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS;
+
if (prev_hlock && (prev_hlock->irq_context !=
hlock->irq_context))
chain_key = 0;
@@ -2815,6 +2818,18 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep
if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(id >= MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS))
return 0;
+ /*
+ * Factor in the read/write state in the chain key calculation.
+ *
+ * Two chains containing lock dependencies in the same order can
+ * still differ due to their read/write state
+ * eg: lock(A)->Rlock(B) is different from lock(A)->Wlock(B)
+ *
+ * Hence distinguish between such chains.
+ */
+ if (is_read(rw_state))
+ id += MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS;
+
chain_key = curr->curr_chain_key;
if (!depth) {
if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(chain_key != 0))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-17 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-17 9:45 [RFC][PATCH 0/7] lockdep: Support recurise-read locks Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-17 9:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] lockdep: Implement extra recursive-read lock tests Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-17 9:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] lockdep: Remove redundant read checks Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-18 14:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-17 9:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7] lockdep: Annotate read/write states Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-18 13:34 ` Yong Zhang
2011-04-18 16:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-18 16:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-18 16:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-18 16:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-18 16:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-17 9:45 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-04-18 16:46 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7] lockdep: Seperate lock ids for read/write acquires Steven Rostedt
2011-04-18 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-18 17:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-18 22:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-17 9:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] lockdep: Rename lock_list::class Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-17 9:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7] lockdep: Maintain rw_state entries in locklist Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-18 13:37 ` Yong Zhang
2011-04-17 9:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: Consider the rw_state of lock while validating the chain Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-18 3:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/7] lockdep: Support recurise-read locks Tetsuo Handa
2011-04-22 7:19 ` Yong Zhang
2011-04-22 7:27 ` Yong Zhang
2011-04-22 7:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-04-22 8:01 ` Yong Zhang
2011-04-22 8:31 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-04-22 8:59 ` Yong Zhang
2011-04-22 9:19 ` Tetsuo Handa
2011-04-23 12:33 ` [PATCH] lockdep: ignore cached chain key for recursive read Yong Zhang
2011-04-23 13:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
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=20110417095507.123045423@chello.nl \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.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