Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753027Ab1DUBnF (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:43:05 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:44714 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751567Ab1DUBnC (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:43:02 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=aqMe+0lCtaYvy4h0jyaoPGyq+DPF+P6rPG2xbekoY9Q= c=1 sm=0 a=vhdKIqpQuCYA:10 a=J9iQyH65EqMA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=bbbx4UPp9XUA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=20KFwNOVAAAA:8 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=bqkp9Ln-ZMrJ4S1OccEA:9 a=fLo3MgdNADROghYNbbIA:7 a=jEp0ucaQiEUA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Message-Id: <20110421014259.132728798@goodmis.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.48-1 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:41:54 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Frederic Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra Subject: [PATCH 1/7] lockdep: Print a nice description of an irq locking issue References: <20110421014153.126662477@goodmis.org> Content-Disposition: inline; filename=0001-lockdep-Print-a-nice-description-of-an-irq-locking-i.patch Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5290 Lines: 169 From: Steven Rostedt Locking order inversion due to interrupts is a subtle problem. When a locking inversion due to interrupts is discovered by lockdep, it currently reports something like this: [ INFO: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ] And then writes the locks that are involved as well as back traces. But several developers are confused by what a HARDIRQ->safe to unsafe issue is all about, and sometimes even blow it off as a bug in lockdep. As it is not obvious when lockdep describes this about a lock that is never taken in interrupt context. After explaining the problems that lockdep is reporting, I decided to add a description of the problem in visual form. Now the following is shown: --- other info that might help us debug this: Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(lockA); local_irq_disable(); lock(&rq->lock); lock(lockA); lock(&rq->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** --- The above is the case when the unsafe lock is taken while holding a lock taken in irq context. But when a lock is taken that also grabs a unsafe lock, the call chain is shown: --- other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &rq->lock --> lockA --> lockC Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(lockC); local_irq_disable(); lock(&rq->lock); lock(lockA); lock(&rq->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt --- kernel/lockdep.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c index 0d2058d..bb77c030 100644 --- a/kernel/lockdep.c +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c @@ -490,6 +490,18 @@ void get_usage_chars(struct lock_class *class, char usage[LOCK_USAGE_CHARS]) usage[i] = '\0'; } +static int __print_lock_name(struct lock_class *class) +{ + char str[KSYM_NAME_LEN]; + const char *name; + + name = class->name; + if (!name) + name = __get_key_name(class->key, str); + + return printk("%s", name); +} + static void print_lock_name(struct lock_class *class) { char str[KSYM_NAME_LEN], usage[LOCK_USAGE_CHARS]; @@ -1325,6 +1337,62 @@ print_shortest_lock_dependencies(struct lock_list *leaf, return; } +static void +print_irq_lock_scenario(struct lock_list *safe_entry, + struct lock_list *unsafe_entry, + struct held_lock *prev, + struct held_lock *next) +{ + struct lock_class *safe_class = safe_entry->class; + struct lock_class *unsafe_class = unsafe_entry->class; + struct lock_class *middle_class = hlock_class(prev); + + if (middle_class == safe_class) + middle_class = hlock_class(next); + + /* + * A direct locking problem where unsafe_class lock is taken + * directly by safe_class lock, then all we need to show + * is the deadlock scenario, as it is obvious that the + * unsafe lock is taken under the safe lock. + * + * But if there is a chain instead, where the safe lock takes + * an intermediate lock (middle_class) where this lock is + * not the same as the safe lock, then the lock chain is + * used to describe the problem. Otherwise we would need + * to show a different CPU case for each link in the chain + * from the safe_class lock to the unsafe_class lock. + */ + if (middle_class != unsafe_class) { + printk("Chain exists of:\n "); + __print_lock_name(safe_class); + printk(" --> "); + __print_lock_name(middle_class); + printk(" --> "); + __print_lock_name(unsafe_class); + printk("\n\n"); + } + + printk(" Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:\n\n"); + printk(" CPU0 CPU1\n"); + printk(" ---- ----\n"); + printk(" lock("); + __print_lock_name(unsafe_class); + printk(");\n"); + printk(" local_irq_disable();\n"); + printk(" lock("); + __print_lock_name(safe_class); + printk(");\n"); + printk(" lock("); + __print_lock_name(middle_class); + printk(");\n"); + printk(" \n"); + printk(" lock("); + __print_lock_name(safe_class); + printk(");\n"); + printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n"); +} + static int print_bad_irq_dependency(struct task_struct *curr, struct lock_list *prev_root, @@ -1376,6 +1444,8 @@ print_bad_irq_dependency(struct task_struct *curr, print_stack_trace(forwards_entry->class->usage_traces + bit2, 1); printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n"); + print_irq_lock_scenario(backwards_entry, forwards_entry, prev, next); + lockdep_print_held_locks(curr); printk("\nthe dependencies between %s-irq-safe lock", irqclass); -- 1.7.2.3 -- 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/