Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750975AbdGYGap (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 02:30:45 -0400 Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:36578 "EHLO lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750783AbdGYGao (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 02:30:44 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:29:45 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Byungchul Park , Ingo Molnar , tglx@linutronix.de, Michel Lespinasse , boqun.feng@gmail.com, kirill@shutemov.name, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org, npiggin@gmail.com, kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/16] lockdep: Detect and handle hist_lock ring buffer overwrite Message-ID: <20170725062945.GM20323@X58A-UD3R> References: <20170713020745.GG20323@X58A-UD3R> <20170713081442.GA439@worktop> <20170713085746.GH20323@X58A-UD3R> <20170713095052.dssev34f7c43vlok@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170713100953.GI20323@X58A-UD3R> <20170713102905.ysrvn7td6ryt4jaj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170713111209.ji6w3trt45icpuf6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170714064210.GK20323@X58A-UD3R> <20170721135420.gadjqv6hian4yzgq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170721135420.gadjqv6hian4yzgq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3330 Lines: 103 On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 03:54:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 08:23:33PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:29:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:09:53PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > >> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:50:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > >> > > wait_for_completion(&C); > > > >> > > atomic_inc_return(); > > > >> > > > > > >> > > mutex_lock(A1); > > > >> > > mutex_unlock(A1); > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > spin_lock(B1); > > > >> > > spin_unlock(B1); > > > >> > > > > > >> > > ... > > > >> > > > > > >> > > spin_lock(B64); > > > >> > > spin_unlock(B64); > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Also consider the alternative: > > > > > > > > > > > > spin_lock(D); > > > > spin_unlock(D); > > > > > > > > complete(&C); > > > > > > > > > > > > in which case the context test will also not work. > > > > > > Context tests are done on xhlock with the release context, _not_ > > > acquisition context. For example, spin_lock(D) and complete(&C) are > > > in the same context, so the test would pass in this example. > > The point was, this example will also link C to B*. _No_, as I already said. > (/me copy paste from older email) > > That gives: > > xhist[ 0] = A1 > xhist[ 1] = B1 > ... > xhist[63] = B63 > > then we wrap and have: > > xhist[0] = B64 > > then we rewind to 1 and invalidate to arrive at: We invalidate xhist[_0_], as I already said. > xhist[ 0] = B64 > xhist[ 1] = NULL <-- idx > xhist[ 2] = B2 > ... > xhist[63] = B63 > > > Then we do D and get > > xhist[ 0] = B64 > xhist[ 1] = D <-- idx > xhist[ 2] = B2 > ... > xhist[63] = B63 We should get xhist[ 0] = NULL xhist[ 1] = D <-- idx xhist[ 2] = B2 ... xhist[63] = B63 By the way, did not you get my reply? I did exactly same answer. Perhaps You have not received or read my replies. > And now there is nothing that will invalidate B*, after all, the > gen_id's are all after C's stamp, and the same_context_xhlock() test > will also pass because they're all from IRQ context (albeit not the > same, but it cannot tell). It will stop at xhist[0] because it has been invalidated. > Does this explain? Or am I still missing something? Could you read the following reply? Not enough? https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/13/214 I am sorry if my english makes you hard to understand. But I already answered all you asked.