Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:37:14 -0400 | From | Waiman Long <> | Subject | Re: Linux 3.16-rc6 |
| |
On 07/25/2014 12:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:38:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> Yes, I think I may have a solution for that. >> >> Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep patch to >> see if it can fix the problem? >> >> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >> index d24e433..507a8ce 100644 >> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >> @@ -3595,6 +3595,12 @@ void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int >> raw_local_irq_save(flags); >> check_flags(flags); >> >> + /* >> + * An interrupt recursive read in interrupt context can be considered >> + * to be the same as a recursive read from checking perspective. >> + */ >> + if ((read == 3)&& in_interrupt()) >> + read = 2; >> current->lockdep_recursion = 1; >> trace_lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, nest_lock, ip); >> __lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, > Just had another look at the initial patch and it cannot be right, even > with the above. > > The problem is you cannot use in_interrupt() in check_deadlock(). > Check_deadlock() must be context invariant, it should only test the > chain state and not rely on where or when its called. > >
I am planning to take out the check in check_deadlock and only have the test in lock_acquire which change a 3 to 2 when in interrupt context. Now my question is whether to do it as a new patch on top of the existing one in tip or a total replacement. I also intend to use symbolic names for the read states for better readability as suggested by John.
-Longman
| |