Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754091Ab1DVMUO (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:20:14 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:57001 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752993Ab1DVMUJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:20:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:19:37 GMT From: tip-bot for Steven Rostedt Message-ID: Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, fweisbec@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, srostedt@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu Reply-To: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, srostedt@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: <20110421014259.132728798@goodmis.org> References: <20110421014259.132728798@goodmis.org> To: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: [tip:core/locking] lockdep: Print a nicer description for irq lock inversions Git-Commit-ID: 3003eba313dd0e0502dd71548c36fe7c19801ce5 X-Mailer: tip-git-log-daemon Robot-ID: Robot-Unsubscribe: Contact to get blacklisted from these emails MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5859 Lines: 181 Commit-ID: 3003eba313dd0e0502dd71548c36fe7c19801ce5 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/3003eba313dd0e0502dd71548c36fe7c19801ce5 Author: Steven Rostedt AuthorDate: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:41:54 -0400 Committer: Ingo Molnar CommitDate: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:06:57 +0200 lockdep: Print a nicer description for irq lock inversions Locking order inversion due to interrupts is a subtle problem. When an irq lockiinversion discovered by lockdep it currently reports something like: [ INFO: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ] ... and then prints out the locks that are involved, as back traces. Judging by lkml feedback developers were routinely confused by what a HARDIRQ->safe to unsafe issue is all about, and sometimes even blew it off as a bug in lockdep. It is not obvious when lockdep prints this message 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 *** Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20110421014259.132728798@goodmis.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/lockdep.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c index 53a6895..7b2ffee 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); -- 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/