From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking/locktorture: Fix incorrect use of ww_acquire_ctx in ww_mutex test
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:21:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae20c4a1-1591-4b09-6de2-e55c30297d24@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210317051605.popetodgwbr47ha2@offworld>
On 3/17/21 1:16 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2021, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> The ww_acquire_ctx structure for ww_mutex needs to persist for a
>> complete
>> lock/unlock cycle. In the ww_mutex test in locktorture, however, both
>> ww_acquire_init() and ww_acquire_fini() are called within the lock
>> function only. This causes a lockdep splat of "WARNING: Nested lock
>> was not taken" when lockdep is enabled in the kernel.
>>
>> To fix this problem, we need to move the ww_acquire_fini() after the
>> ww_mutex_unlock() in torture_ww_mutex_unlock(). In other word, we need
>> to pass state information from the lock function to the unlock function.
>
> Right, and afaict this _is_ the way ww_acquire_fini() should be called:
>
> * Releases a w/w acquire context. This must be called _after_ all
> acquired w/w
> * mutexes have been released with ww_mutex_unlock.
>
>> Change the writelock and writeunlock function prototypes to allow that
>> and change the torture_ww_mutex_lock() and torture_ww_mutex_unlock()
>> accordingly.
>
> But wouldn't just making ctx a global variable be enough instead? That
> way
> we don't deal with memory allocation for every lock/unlock operation
> (yuck).
> Plus the ENOMEM would need to be handled/propagated accordingly - the
> code
> really doesn't expect any failure from ->writelock().
The ctx should be per-thread to track potential locking conflict. Since
there are as many locking threads as the number of cpus, we can't use
one global variable to do that. I was thinking about using per-cpu
variable but locktorture kthreads are cpu-bound. That led me to use the
current scheme of allocation at lock and free at unlock.
Another alternative is to add a per-thread init/fini methods to allow
setting up per-thread context that is passed to the locking functions.
By doing that, we only need one kmalloc/kfree pair per running
locktorture kthread.
Cheers,
Longman
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-17 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-16 15:31 [PATCH 0/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix locktorture ww_mutex test problems Waiman Long
2021-03-16 15:31 ` [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: Simplify use_ww_ctx & ww_ctx handling Waiman Long
2021-03-16 18:55 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-03-17 12:38 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Waiman Long
2021-03-17 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 13:43 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 13:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 14:10 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 14:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 14:33 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-16 15:31 ` [PATCH 2/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix acquire/release imbalance in ww_acquire_init()/ww_acquire_fini() Waiman Long
2021-03-17 12:38 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Waiman Long
2021-03-16 15:31 ` [PATCH 3/4] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock() like a trylock Waiman Long
2021-03-17 3:01 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-03-17 12:38 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Waiman Long
2021-03-17 13:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 13:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 14:03 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 15:35 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 16:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 17:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 17:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 18:32 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 19:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-17 20:20 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-17 18:14 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-18 2:24 ` [PATCH 3/4] " Boqun Feng
2021-03-18 2:54 ` Waiman Long
2021-03-18 6:36 ` Boqun Feng
2021-03-16 15:31 ` [PATCH 4/4] locking/locktorture: Fix incorrect use of ww_acquire_ctx in ww_mutex test Waiman Long
2021-03-17 5:16 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-03-17 13:21 ` Waiman Long [this message]
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=ae20c4a1-1591-4b09-6de2-e55c30297d24@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@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