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;
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
To:     peterz@infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org
Cc:     bvanassche@acm.org, ming.lei@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 18/19] locking/lockdep: Update comments on dependency search
Date:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:57:32 +0800
Message-Id: <20190318085733.3143-19-duyuyang@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190318085733.3143-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
References: <20190318085733.3143-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

The breadth-first search is implemented as flat-out non-recursive now, but
the comments are still describing it as recursive, update the comments in
that regard.

Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 90d58cc..1d38bf6 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1384,6 +1384,10 @@ static inline struct list_head *get_backward_dep(struct lock_list * lock)
 	return &lock->class->locks_before;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Forward- or backward-dependency search, used for both circular dependency
+ * checking and hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe checking.
+ */
 static int __bfs(struct lock_list *source_entry,
 		 void *data,
 		 int (*match)(struct lock_list *entry, void *data),
@@ -1461,12 +1465,6 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list *src_entry, void *data,
 }
 
 /*
- * Recursive, forwards-direction lock-dependency checking, used for
- * both noncyclic checking and for hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe
- * checking.
- */
-
-/*
  * Print a dependency chain entry (this is only done when a deadlock
  * has been detected):
  */
@@ -2166,7 +2164,7 @@ static void print_deadlock_scenario(struct held_lock *nxt,
 
 /*
  * There was a chain-cache miss, and we are about to add a new dependency
- * to a previous lock. We recursively validate the following rules:
+ * to a previous lock. We validate the following rules:
  *
  *  - would the adding of the <prev> -> <next> dependency create a
  *    circular dependency in the graph? [== circular deadlock]
@@ -2216,11 +2214,12 @@ static void print_deadlock_scenario(struct held_lock *nxt,
 	/*
 	 * Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
 	 * create a circular dependency in the graph. (We do this by
-	 * forward-recursing into the graph starting at <next>, and
-	 * checking whether we can reach <prev>.)
+	 * a breadth-first search into the graph starting at <next>,
+	 * which checks whether we can reach <prev>.)
 	 *
-	 * We are using global variables to control the recursion, to
-	 * keep the stackframe size of the recursive functions low:
+	 * The search is limited by the size of the circular queue (i.e.,
+	 * MAX_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_SIZE) which keeps track of a breadth of nodes
+	 * in the graph whose neighbours are to be checked.
 	 */
 	this.class = hlock_class(next);
 	this.parent = NULL;
-- 
1.8.3.1