lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 2.6.24-rc6: possible recursive locking detected
From
Date

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 20:49 +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Consider this "just for illustration" patch,
> >
> > --- t/kernel/lockdep.c 2007-11-09 12:57:31.000000000 +0300
> > +++ t/kernel/lockdep.c 2008-01-07 19:43:50.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -1266,10 +1266,13 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr,
> > struct held_lock *prev;
> > int i;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < curr->lockdep_depth; i++) {
> > + for (i = curr->lockdep_depth; --i >= 0; ) {
> > prev = curr->held_locks + i;
> > if (prev->class != next->class)
> > continue;
> > +
> > + if (prev->trylock == -1)
> > + return 2;
> > /*
> > * Allow read-after-read recursion of the same
> > * lock class (i.e. read_lock(lock)+read_lock(lock)):
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Now,
> >
> > // trylock == -1
> > #define spin_mark_nested(l) \
> > lock_acquire(&(l)->dep_map, 0, -1, 0, 2, _THIS_IP_)
> > #define spin_unmark_nested(l) \
> > lock_release(&(l)->dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_)
> >
> > and ep_poll_safewake() can do:
> >
> > /* Do really wake up now */
> > spin_mark_nested(&wq->lock);
> > wake_up(wq);
> > spin_unmark_nested(&wq->lock);
>
> I tested the patch above with the following code,
>
> wait_queue_head_t w1, w2, w3;
>
> init_waitqueue_head(&w1);
> init_waitqueue_head(&w2);
> init_waitqueue_head(&w3);
>
> local_irq_disable();
> spin_lock(&w1.lock);
>
> spin_mark_nested(&w2.lock);
> spin_lock(&w2.lock);
>
> spin_mark_nested(&w3.lock);
> wake_up(&w3);
> spin_unmark_nested(&w3.lock);
>
> spin_unlock(&w2.lock);
> spin_unmark_nested(&w2.lock);
>
> spin_unlock(&w1.lock);
> local_irq_enable();
>
> seems to work. What do you think?

I've been pondering this for a while, and some days I really like it,
some days I don't.

The problem I have with it is that it becomes very easy to falsely
annotate problems away - its a very powerful annotation. That said, its
almost powerful enough to annotate the device semaphore/mutex problem.

I think I'll do wake_up_nested() for now and keep this around.

Thanks for this very nice idea though.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-13 17:35    [W:0.062 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site