Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755740AbaFWO4R (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:56:17 -0400 Received: from g4t3427.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.55]:13158 "EHLO g4t3427.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755672AbaFWO4O (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:56:14 -0400 Message-ID: <53A8400A.6080602@hp.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:56:10 -0400 From: Waiman Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott J Norton Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lockdep: restrict the use of recursive read_lock with qrwlock References: <1403292166-35530-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <20140623070912.GG19860@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20140623070912.GG19860@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/23/2014 03:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:22:46PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> v2->v3: >> - Add a new read mode (3) for rwlock (used in >> lock_acquire_shared_cond_recursive()) to avoid conflict with other >> use cases of lock_acquire_shared_recursive(). >> >> v1->v2: >> - Use less conditional& make it easier to read >> >> Unlike the original unfair rwlock implementation, queued rwlock >> will grant lock according to the chronological sequence of the lock >> requests except when the lock requester is in the interrupt context. >> As a result, recursive read_lock calls will hang the process if there >> is a write_lock call somewhere in between the read_lock calls. >> >> This patch updates the lockdep implementation to look for recursive >> read_lock calls when queued rwlock is being used. >> >> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long > So this Changelog really won't do. This vn->vn+1 nonsense should not be > part of the Changelog proper. I occasionally saw change log with history, and so thought that it might be OK. I will take that out in the next patch. > Also, you failed to mention what prompted you to write this patch; did > you find an offending site that now triggers a lockdep warning? This patch was prompted by a btrfs filesystem hangup problem with qrwlock which is readily reproducible. I was trying to figure out if that hangup was caused by recursive read_lock which looked likely after reading their locking code. It turned out that the cause was more complex and recursive read_lock wasn't the only problem. Chris Mason had sent a fix to Linus which was included in rc2. With the lockdep change, I also found another recursive read_lock problem in the selinux code. > > You also fail to mention that the new read state fits, but exhausts, the > storage in held_lock::read. > Will look into that issue a bit more. >> --- >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h >> index 008388f..0a53d88 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h >> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h >> @@ -481,13 +481,15 @@ static inline void print_irqtrace_events(struct task_struct *curr) >> #define lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 0, 1, n, i) >> #define lock_acquire_shared(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 1, 1, n, i) >> #define lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 2, 1, n, i) >> +#define lock_acquire_shared_cond_recursive(l, s, t, n, i) \ >> + lock_acquire(l, s, t, 3, 1, n, i) >> #define spin_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, NULL, i) >> #define spin_acquire_nest(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, n, i) >> #define spin_release(l, n, i) lock_release(l, n, i) >> >> #define rwlock_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, NULL, i) >> -#define rwlock_acquire_read(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, NULL, i) >> +#define rwlock_acquire_read(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_shared_cond_recursive(l, s, t, NULL, i) > Yeah, no. Only the qrwlock has the new cond_recursive thing. So you mean put the conditional compilation here around the definition of rwlock_acquire_read. I can do that. >> #define rwlock_release(l, n, i) lock_release(l, n, i) >> >> #define seqcount_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, NULL, i) >> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >> index d24e433..7d90ebc 100644 >> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >> @@ -67,6 +67,16 @@ module_param(lock_stat, int, 0644); >> #define lock_stat 0 >> #endif >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_QUEUE_RWLOCK >> +/* >> +* Queue rwlock only allows read-after-read recursion of the same lock class >> +* when the latter read is in an interrupt context. >> +*/ >> +#define allow_recursive_read in_interrupt() >> +#else >> +#define allow_recursive_read true >> +#endif > That #ifdef is entirely inappropriate, the lockdep implementation should > not depend on this. Furthermore you now added a new read state with > variable semantics, that's crap. I will modify it to explicitly say allowing recursive read only in interrupt context so that there is no confusion on what it is for. -Longman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/