public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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