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, frederic@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        longman@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com, Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 15/30] locking/lockdep: Add lock chains to direct lock dependency graph
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:15:13 +0800
Message-Id: <20190628091528.17059-16-duyuyang@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190628091528.17059-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
References: <20190628091528.17059-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Lock chains are derived from the current task lock stack. A lock chain
is a new sequence of locks taken by tasks or by interrupts "in the
tasks". It is not hard to notice that lockdep validates locking behavior
on lock chain basis, hence its main function name validate_chain(). With
a new lock chain, there may be a new direct dependency, and if so the
new dependency is checked.

Every direct lock dependency must be the top two locks in the lock
chains, but one direct dependency normally is associated with a number
of lock chains.

With such relationship between lock dependencies and lock chains, this
patch maps lock chains to their corresponding lock dependencies:

Lock dependency: L1 -> L2:
                    |
                    |--> Lock chain 1: .... L1 -> L2
                    |
                    |--> Lock chain 2: .... L1 -> L2
                    |
                  .....

Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 36d55d3..3b655fd 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -978,6 +978,33 @@ static bool __check_data_structures(void)
 			       e->class[1]->name ? : "(?)");
 			return false;
 		}
+
+		list_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, &e->chains, chain_entry) {
+			if (!check_lock_chain_key(chain))
+				return false;
+
+			/* <next> lock */
+			class = lock_classes +
+				chain_hlocks[chain->base + chain->depth - 1];
+			if (class != e->class[1]) {
+				printk(KERN_INFO "list entry %d has bad <next> lock; class %s <> %s\n",
+				       (unsigned int)(e - list_entries),
+				       class->name ? : "(?)",
+				       e->class[1]->name ? : "(?)");
+				return false;
+			}
+
+			/* <prev> lock */
+			class = lock_classes +
+				chain_hlocks[chain->base + chain->depth - 2];
+			if (class != e->class[0]) {
+				printk(KERN_INFO "list entry %d has bad <prev> lock; class %s <> %s\n",
+				       (unsigned int)(e - list_entries),
+				       class->name ? : "(?)",
+				       e->class[0]->name ? : "(?)");
+				return false;
+			}
+		}
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -1004,6 +1031,16 @@ static bool __check_data_structures(void)
 			       e->class[1]->name : "(?)");
 			return false;
 		}
+
+		if (!list_empty(&e->chains)) {
+			printk(KERN_INFO "list entry %d has nonempty chain list; class %s <> %s\n",
+			       (unsigned int)(e - list_entries),
+			       e->class[0] && e->class[0]->name ? e->class[0]->name :
+			       "(?)",
+			       e->class[1] && e->class[1]->name ?
+			       e->class[1]->name : "(?)");
+			return false;
+		}
 	}
 
 	return true;
@@ -1060,6 +1097,9 @@ static void init_data_structures_once(void)
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lock_classes[i].dep_list[0]);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lock_classes[i].dep_list[1]);
 	}
+
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(list_entries); i++)
+		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&list_entries[i].chains);
 }
 
 static inline struct hlist_head *keyhashentry(const struct lock_class_key *key)
@@ -1234,6 +1274,7 @@ static bool is_dynamic_key(const struct lock_class_key *key)
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
+static DECLARE_BITMAP(lock_chains_in_dep, MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS);
 static inline struct
 lock_chain *lookup_chain_cache_add(struct task_struct *curr,
 				   struct held_lock *hlock,
@@ -1266,7 +1307,7 @@ static struct lock_list *alloc_list_entry(void)
  */
 static int add_lock_to_list(struct lock_class *lock1, struct lock_class *lock2,
 			    unsigned long ip, int distance,
-			    struct lock_trace *trace)
+			    struct lock_trace *trace, struct lock_chain *chain)
 {
 	struct lock_list *entry;
 	/*
@@ -1290,6 +1331,12 @@ static int add_lock_to_list(struct lock_class *lock1, struct lock_class *lock2,
 	list_add_tail_rcu(&entry->entry[1], &lock1->dep_list[1]);
 	list_add_tail_rcu(&entry->entry[0], &lock2->dep_list[0]);
 
+	/*
+	 * Add the corresponding lock chain to lock_list's chains.
+	 */
+	list_add_tail_rcu(&chain->chain_entry, &entry->chains);
+	__set_bit(chain - lock_chains, lock_chains_in_dep);
+
 	return 1;
 }
 
@@ -2407,6 +2454,9 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
 		if (fw_dep_class(entry) == hlock_class(next)) {
 			debug_atomic_inc(nr_redundant);
 
+			list_add_tail_rcu(&chain->chain_entry, &entry->chains);
+			__set_bit(chain - lock_chains, lock_chains_in_dep);
+
 			if (distance == 1)
 				entry->distance = 1;
 
@@ -2450,8 +2500,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
 	 * dependency list of the previous lock <prev>:
 	 */
 	ret = add_lock_to_list(hlock_class(prev), hlock_class(next),
-			       next->acquire_ip, distance, trace);
-
+			       next->acquire_ip, distance, trace, chain);
 	if (!ret)
 		return 0;
 
@@ -4711,8 +4760,11 @@ static void remove_class_from_lock_chain(struct pending_free *pf,
 	 * If the modified lock chain matches an existing lock chain, drop
 	 * the modified lock chain.
 	 */
-	if (lookup_chain_cache(chain_key))
+	if (lookup_chain_cache(chain_key)) {
+		if (test_bit(chain - lock_chains, lock_chains_in_dep))
+			list_del_rcu(&chain->chain_entry);
 		return;
+	}
 	new_chain = alloc_lock_chain();
 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_chain)) {
 		debug_locks_off();
@@ -4720,6 +4772,10 @@ static void remove_class_from_lock_chain(struct pending_free *pf,
 	}
 	*new_chain = *chain;
 	hlist_add_head_rcu(&new_chain->entry, chainhashentry(chain_key));
+	if (test_bit(chain - lock_chains, lock_chains_in_dep)) {
+		list_replace_rcu(&chain->chain_entry, &new_chain->chain_entry);
+		__set_bit(new_chain - lock_chains, lock_chains_in_dep);
+	}
 #endif
 }
 
@@ -4745,6 +4801,7 @@ static void remove_class_from_lock_chains(struct pending_free *pf,
 static void zap_class(struct pending_free *pf, struct lock_class *class)
 {
 	struct lock_list *entry;
+	struct lock_chain *chain;
 	int i;
 
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!class->key);
@@ -4761,6 +4818,17 @@ static void zap_class(struct pending_free *pf, struct lock_class *class)
 		nr_list_entries--;
 		list_del_rcu(&entry->entry[0]);
 		list_del_rcu(&entry->entry[1]);
+		/*
+		 * Destroy the chain list by deleting every chain associated
+		 * with this lock_list entry.
+		 *
+		 * The corresponding lock chains in this lock_list will
+		 * be removed later by remove_class_from_lock_chains().
+		 */
+		list_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, &entry->chains, chain_entry) {
+			__clear_bit(chain - lock_chains, lock_chains_in_dep);
+			list_del_rcu(&chain->chain_entry);
+		}
 	}
 	if (list_empty(&class->dep_list[0]) &&
 	    list_empty(&class->dep_list[1])) {
@@ -4847,6 +4915,8 @@ static void __free_zapped_classes(struct pending_free *pf)
 #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
 	bitmap_andnot(lock_chains_in_use, lock_chains_in_use,
 		      pf->lock_chains_being_freed, ARRAY_SIZE(lock_chains));
+	bitmap_andnot(lock_chains_in_dep, lock_chains_in_dep,
+		      pf->lock_chains_being_freed, ARRAY_SIZE(lock_chains));
 	bitmap_clear(pf->lock_chains_being_freed, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(lock_chains));
 #endif
 }
@@ -5125,6 +5195,7 @@ void __init lockdep_init(void)
 		+ sizeof(lock_cq)
 		+ sizeof(lock_chains)
 		+ sizeof(lock_chains_in_use)
+		+ sizeof(lock_chains_in_dep)
 		+ sizeof(chain_hlocks)
 #endif
 		) / 1024
-- 
1.8.3.1