Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:26:52 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 04/17] lockdep: Introduce
 lock_list::dep
Message-ID: <20180224092651.hjxznghmuiyj4rnp@tardis>
References: <20180222070904.548-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20180222070904.548-5-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20180223115520.GV25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180223123732.acxbavnf2ktd4lzl@tardis>
 <20180224053250.ketrlbq4gtx573qo@tardis>
 <20180224063005.efbowkoq2v4qndan@tardis>
 <20180224083807.GB25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180224090019.3smjampkk4zoacb3@tardis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="svy3zkwelixvks2a"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180224090019.3smjampkk4zoacb3@tardis>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--svy3zkwelixvks2a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 05:00:19PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 09:38:07AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 02:30:05PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 01:32:50PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >=20
> > > > 	/*
> > > > 	 * DEP_*_BIT in lock_list::dep
> > > > 	 *
> > > > 	 * For dependency @prev -> @next:
> > > > 	 *
> > > > 	 *   RR: both @prev and @next are recursive read locks, i.e. ->rea=
d =3D=3D 2.
> > > > 	 *   RN: @prev is recursive and @next is non-recursive.
> > > > 	 *   NR: @prev is a not recursive and @next is recursive.
> > > > 	 *   NN: both @prev and @next are non-recursive.
> > > > 	 *=20
> > > > 	 * Note that we define the value of DEP_*_BITs so that:
> > > > 	 * 	bit0 is prev->read !=3D 2
> > > > 	 * 	bit1 is next->read !=3D 2
> > > > 	 */
> > > > 	#define DEP_RR_BIT 0
> > > > 	#define DEP_RN_BIT 1
> > > > 	#define DEP_NR_BIT 2
> > > > 	#define DEP_NN_BIT 3
> > > >=20
> > > > 	#define DEP_RR_MASK (1U << (DEP_RR_BIT))
> > > > 	#define DEP_RN_MASK (1U << (DEP_RN_BIT))
> > > > 	#define DEP_NR_MASK (1U << (DEP_NR_BIT))
> > > > 	#define DEP_NN_MASK (1U << (DEP_NN_BIT))
> > > >=20
> > > > 	static inline unsigned int
> > > > 	__calc_dep_bit(struct held_lock *prev, struct held_lock *next)
> > > > 	{
> > > > 		return (prev->read !=3D 2) + ((next->read !=3D 2) << 1)
> > > > 	}
> > > >=20
> > > > 	static inline u8 calc_dep(struct held_lock *prev, struct held_lock=
 *next)
> > > > 	{
> > > > 		return 1U << __calc_dep_bit(prev, next);
> > > > 	}
> > > >=20
> > > >  	static inline bool only_rx(u8 dep)
> > > >  	{
> > > >  		return !(dep & (DEP_NR_MASK | DEP_NN_MASK));
> > > >  	}
> > > >=20
> > > >  	static inline bool only_xr(u8 dep)
> > > >  	{
> > > >  		return !(dep & (DEP_NR_MASK | DEP_NN_MASK));
> > > >  	}
> > > >=20
> >=20
> > > > > > 	if (have_xr && is_rx(entry->dep))
> > > > > > 		continue;
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > 	entry->have_xr =3D is_xr(entry->dep);
> > > > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Hmm.. I think this part also needs some tweak:
> > >=20
> > > 	/* if -> prev is *R, and we only have R* for prev -> this, * skip*/
> > > 	if (have_xr && only_rx(entry->dep))
> > > 		continue;
> > > =09
> > > 	/*
> > > 	 * we pick a *R for prev -> this only if:
> > > 	 *     prev -> this dependencies are all *R=20
> > > 	 * or
> > > 	 *     -> prev is *R, and we don't have NN for prev -> this
> > > 	 */
> > > 	entry->have_xr =3D only_xr(entry->dep) || (have_xr && !is_nn(entry->=
dep));
> > >=20
> > > otherwise, we will wrongly set entry->have_xr to false if have_xr is
> > > true and we have RN for prev -> this.
> >=20
> > OK, so its saturday morning and such, but what? Why should we set
> > have_xr true when we have RN? Note that if we only had RN we'd already
> > have bailed on the continue due to only_rx().
> >=20
>=20
> But what if we have RN and NR? only_rx() will return false, but due to
> have_xr is true, we can not pick RN, so entry->have_xr should be set to
> true (due to we have to pick NR), however only_xr() is false becuase we
> have RN, so if we set entry->have_xr to only_xr(), we set it as false.
>=20
> This is for case like:
>=20
> 	TASK1:
> 		read_lock(A);
> 		read_lock(B);
> =09
> 	TASK2:
> 		write_lock(B);
> 		read_lock(C);
> =09
> 	TASK3:
> 		read_lock(B);
> 		write_lock(C);
>=20
> 	TASK4:
> 		read_lock(C);
> 		write_lock(A);
>=20
> , which is not a deadlock.
>=20

After TASK 1,2,3 have executed, we have A -(RR)-> B, B -(RN/NR)-> C, and
when TASK4 executed, we will try to add C -(RN)-> A into the graph.
Before that we need to check whether we have a A -> ... -(*N)-> C path
in the graph already, so we search from A (@prev is C and @this is A):

*	we set A->have_xr to false, because the dependency we are adding
	is a RN.

*	we find A -(RR)-> B, and since have_xr (=3D A->have_xr) is false,
	we can pick this dependency, and since for A -> B, we only have
	RR, so we set B->have_xr to true.

*	we then find B -(RN/NR)-> C, and since have_xr (=3D B->have_xr) is
	true, we will pick it only only_rx(C->dep) return false,
	otherwise we skip. Because we have RN and NR for B -> C,
	therefore we won't skip B -> C.

*	Now we try to set C->have_xr, if we set it to only_xr(C->dep),
	we will set it to false, right? Because B -> C has RN.

*	Since we now find a entry equal to @prev, we go into the
	hlock_conflict() logic and for expression
	=09
		hlock->read !=3D 2 || !entry->have_xr=20
=09
	@hlock is the C in TASK4, so hlock->read =3D=3D 2, and @entry is the
	C whose ->have_xr we just set, so entry->have_xr is false.
	Therefore hlock_conflict() returns true. And that indicates we
	find a deadlock in the search. But the above senario can not
	introduce a deadlock.

Could this help you, or I miss something?

Regards,
Boqun

> Am I missing something sublte?
> 	=09
>=20
> Regards,
> Boqun
>=20
> > So can you elaborate a bit?


--svy3zkwelixvks2a
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEj5IosQTPz8XU1wRHSXnow7UH+rgFAlqRL9gACgkQSXnow7UH
+rhy0gf/YCPNb79Ga3FOtrNtKsayr33vhFANXciw/Jc7RLLulPIarTkqYhgHHp7M
LOz8lsgdYswqizt44DRESmXCcIqhMipWH2NwC3H5ovKiRAE1tZ96H47o7SG06uD3
/9bKC5LJGwYvNNq6twRkU7kZKAkgTPs0lOMtgvVg23+rrBZJP0Eus/UPXmbzHVwy
q2Z5dmq5nOq2PaJ6OpZJadkAJOXpddqCeWyA+obPMXTfkc7kJpfwWYbIk8yiwySy
sTtb7lAtmcCOgfQ4LNiCu8IoFc/wBLHVRccxxK6+oDa1kzYbywIAWZtoCL4DDKap
X1SI0xgvukZtWCyBpXjQq+ulaOnjDA==
=xRfP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--svy3zkwelixvks2a--