From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@lge.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
johannes@sipsolutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:43:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170823024323.GD3108@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170822134922.m2g6kqsqo2eojrg7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 03:49:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:08:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > > > I meant:
> > > > >
> > > > > mutex_lock(&A)
> > > > > <work>
> > > > > lockdep_map_acquire_read(&work)
> > > > > mutex_lock(&A)
> > > > >
> > > > > lockdep_map_acquire(&work)
> > > > > flush_work(&work)
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean it can still be detected with a read acquisition in work.
> > > > > Am I wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Think so, although there's something weird with read locks that I keep
> > > > forgetting. But I'm not sure it'll actually solve the problem. But I can
> > >
> > > I mean, read acquisitions are nothing but ones allowing read ones to be
> > > re-acquired legally, IOW, we want to check entrance of flush_work() and
> > > works, not between works. That's why I suggested to use read ones in work
> > > in that case.
> >
> > Does seem to work.
>
> So I think we'll end up hitting a lockdep deficiency and not trigger the
> splat on flush_work(), see also:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/332801/
>
> lock_map_acquire_read() is a read-recursive and will not in fact create
> any dependencies because of this issue.
>
> In specific, check_prev_add() has:
>
> if (next->read == 2 || prev->read == 2)
> return 1;
>
> This means that for:
>
> lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> down_write(A) (0)
>
> down_write(A) (0)
> wait_for_completion(C) (0)
>
> lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> complete(C) (0)
>
> All the (2) effectively go away and 'solve' our current issue, but:
>
> lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> mutex_lock(A) (0)
>
> mutex_lock(A) (0)
> lock_map_acquire(W) (0)
>
> as per flush_work() will not in fact trigger anymore either.
It should be triggered. Lockdep code should be fixed so that it does.
> See also the below locking-selftest changes.
>
>
> Now, this means I also have to consider the existing
> lock_map_acquire_read() users and if they really wanted to be recursive
> or not. When I change lock_map_acquire_read() to use
> lock_acquire_shared() this annotation no longer suffices and the splat
> comes back.
>
>
> Also, the acquire_read() annotation will (obviously) no longer work to
> cure this problem when we switch to normal read (1), because then the
> generated chain:
>
> W(1) -> A(0) -> C(0) -> W(1)
Please explain what W/A/C stand for.
>
> spells deadlock, since W isn't allowed to recurse.
>
>
> /me goes dig through commit:
>
> e159489baa71 ("workqueue: relax lockdep annotation on flush_work()")
>
> to figure out wth the existing users really want.
>
>
> [ 0.000000] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.000000] | spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem |
> [ 0.000000] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [ 0.000000] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.000000] recursive read-lock: | ok | | ok |
> [ 0.000000] recursive read-lock #2: | ok | | ok |
> [ 0.000000] mixed read-write-lock: | ok | | ok |
> [ 0.000000] mixed write-read-lock: | ok | | ok |
> [ 0.000000] mixed read-lock/lock-write ABBA: |FAILED| | ok |
> [ 0.000000] mixed read-lock/lock-read ABBA: | ok | | ok |
> [ 0.000000] mixed write-lock/lock-write ABBA: | ok | | ok |
> [ 0.000000] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---
> lib/locking-selftest.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 116 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> index 6f2b135dc5e8..b99d365cf399 100644
> --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
> +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> @@ -363,6 +363,103 @@ static void rsem_AA3(void)
> }
>
> /*
> + * read_lock(A)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + * write_lock(A)
> + */
> +static void rlock_ABBA1(void)
> +{
> + RL(X1);
> + L(Y1);
> + U(Y1);
> + RU(X1);
> +
> + L(Y1);
> + WL(X1);
> + WU(X1);
> + U(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +static void rwsem_ABBA1(void)
> +{
> + RSL(X1);
> + ML(Y1);
> + MU(Y1);
> + RSU(X1);
> +
> + ML(Y1);
> + WSL(X1);
> + WSU(X1);
> + MU(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * read_lock(A)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + * read_lock(A)
> + */
> +static void rlock_ABBA2(void)
> +{
> + RL(X1);
> + L(Y1);
> + U(Y1);
> + RU(X1);
> +
> + L(Y1);
> + RL(X1);
> + RU(X1);
> + U(Y1); // should NOT fail
> +}
> +
> +static void rwsem_ABBA2(void)
> +{
> + RSL(X1);
> + ML(Y1);
> + MU(Y1);
> + RSU(X1);
> +
> + ML(Y1);
> + RSL(X1);
> + RSU(X1);
> + MU(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +
> +/*
> + * write_lock(A)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + * write_lock(A)
> + */
> +static void rlock_ABBA3(void)
> +{
> + WL(X1);
> + L(Y1);
> + U(Y1);
> + WU(X1);
> +
> + L(Y1);
> + WL(X1);
> + WU(X1);
> + U(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +static void rwsem_ABBA3(void)
> +{
> + WSL(X1);
> + ML(Y1);
> + MU(Y1);
> + WSU(X1);
> +
> + ML(Y1);
> + WSL(X1);
> + WSU(X1);
> + MU(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * ABBA deadlock:
> */
>
> @@ -1057,7 +1154,7 @@ static void dotest(void (*testcase_fn)(void), int expected, int lockclass_mask)
> unexpected_testcase_failures++;
> pr_cont("FAILED|");
>
> - dump_stack();
> +// dump_stack();
> } else {
> testcase_successes++;
> pr_cont(" ok |");
> @@ -1933,6 +2030,24 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
> dotest(rsem_AA3, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
> pr_cont("\n");
>
> + print_testname("mixed read-lock/lock-write ABBA");
> + pr_cont(" |");
> + dotest(rlock_ABBA1, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK);
> + pr_cont(" |");
> + dotest(rwsem_ABBA1, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
> +
> + print_testname("mixed read-lock/lock-read ABBA");
> + pr_cont(" |");
> + dotest(rlock_ABBA2, SUCCESS, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK);
> + pr_cont(" |");
> + dotest(rwsem_ABBA2, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
> +
> + print_testname("mixed write-lock/lock-write ABBA");
> + pr_cont(" |");
> + dotest(rlock_ABBA3, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK);
> + pr_cont(" |");
> + dotest(rwsem_ABBA3, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
> +
> printk(" --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n");
>
> /*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-23 2:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-17 8:57 [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING Byungchul Park
2017-08-17 8:57 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] lockdep: Reword title of LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE config Byungchul Park
2017-08-17 10:21 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/lockdep: " tip-bot for Byungchul Park
2017-08-17 8:57 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] lockdep: Rename LOCKDEP_COMPLETE config Byungchul Park
2017-08-17 10:22 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/lockdep: Rename CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETE to CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS tip-bot for Byungchul Park
2017-08-17 10:21 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/lockdep: Make CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE part of CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING tip-bot for Byungchul Park
2017-08-17 10:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-08-18 5:33 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-21 15:46 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 5:14 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 7:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 8:51 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 9:33 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 13:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 14:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 15:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2017-08-22 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-23 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2017-08-23 17:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-24 6:11 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-24 7:37 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-24 8:11 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-25 1:14 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-29 15:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2017-08-29 17:07 ` lockdep && recursive-read Oleg Nesterov
2017-08-29 17:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-29 17:51 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-23 2:43 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2017-08-23 6:31 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-23 10:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-24 5:07 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 5:46 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-22 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 9:22 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 9:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-22 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-23 2:12 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-23 6:03 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-23 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-24 2:02 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-24 7:30 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-22 21:19 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-23 2:31 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-23 6:11 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-23 10:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-24 5:06 ` Byungchul Park
2017-08-23 1:56 ` 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=20170823024323.GD3108@X58A-UD3R \
--to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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