From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
walken@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Add a document describing crossrelease feature
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:49:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160706004943.GA20366@insomnia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160704064259.GX2279@X58A-UD3R>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2019 bytes --]
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:42:59PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
[snip]
> > > +2. A lock has dependency with all locks in the releasing context, having
> > > + been held since the lock was held.
> >
> > But you cannot tell this. The 'since the lock was held' thing fully
> > depends on timing and is not fundamentally correct.
> >
> > lock(A)
> > unlock(A)
> > lock(A)
> > wait_for(B)
> > unlock(A)
> > wake(B)
> >
> > Between the wait_for(B) and wake(B), _nothing_ has been held, yet still
> > there's the deadlock potential.
>
> Crossreleas feature can detect this situation as a deadlock. wait_for()
> is not an actual lock, but we can make it detectable by using acquring and
> releasing semantics on wait_for() and wake().
>
> > And note that if the timing was 'right', you would never get to wake(B)
> > because deadlock, so you'd never establish that there would be a
> > deadlock.
>
> If a deadlock actually happens, then we cannot establish it as you said.
> Remind that current lockdep does nothing for this situation. But at least
> crossrelease feature can detect this deadlock possibility at the time the
> dependency tree(graph) is built, which is better than doing nothing.
>
Confused, how?
Say the sequence of events is as follow:
(two tasks are initially with no lock held)
Task 1 Task 2
============= ====================
lock(A)
unlock(A)
lock(A)
wait_for(B) // acquire
wake(B) // commit + release
unlock(A)
by the time, the commit are called, the dependency tree will be built,
and we will find there is _no_ lock held before wake(B). Therefore at
the release stage, you will end up only adding dependency chain A->B in
the lockdep, right? And it looks like neither Task1 or Task2 will break
the dependency chain A->B. So how can crossrelease detect the potential
deadlock?
It will be better, that you could provide some samples that crossrelease
can detect after your confirmation.
Regards,
Boqun
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-06 0:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-20 4:55 [RFC 00/12] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 01/12] lockdep: Refactor lookup_chain_cache() Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 02/12] lockdep: Add a function building a chain between two hlocks Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 03/12] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a stack_trace of other context Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 04/12] lockdep: Make save_trace can copy from other stack_trace Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 05/12] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park
2016-06-30 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-30 23:28 ` Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 06/12] lockdep: Apply crossrelease to completion Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 07/12] pagemap.h: Remove trailing white space Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 08/12] lockdep: Apply crossrelease to PG_locked lock Byungchul Park
2016-06-30 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-30 23:21 ` Byungchul Park
2016-07-01 8:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-01 11:18 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-07-04 4:30 ` Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 09/12] cifs/file.c: Remove trailing white space Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 10/12] mm/swap_state.c: " Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 11/12] lockdep: Call lock_acquire(release) when accessing PG_locked manually Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 4:55 ` [RFC 12/12] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace Byungchul Park
2016-06-20 7:29 ` xinhui
2016-06-20 7:50 ` byungchul.park
2016-06-29 12:43 ` Byungchul Park
2016-06-30 10:38 ` xinhui
2016-06-30 23:06 ` Byungchul Park
2016-06-23 23:37 ` [RFC 00/12] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park
2016-06-24 7:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-24 11:13 ` Byungchul Park
2016-06-24 11:26 ` Nikolay Borisov
2016-06-27 1:34 ` Byungchul Park
2016-07-01 4:15 ` [PATCH] lockdep: Add a document describing " Byungchul Park
2016-07-01 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-04 6:42 ` Byungchul Park
2016-07-06 0:49 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2016-07-06 2:17 ` Byungchul Park
2016-07-06 5:33 ` Byungchul Park
2016-07-06 7:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-06 8:12 ` Byungchul Park
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=20160706004943.GA20366@insomnia \
--to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=walken@google.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