lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:37:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 06:22:36PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:06:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So I did the below little hack, which basically wipes the entire lock
> > > history when we start a work and thereby disregards/looses the
> > > dependency on the work 'lock'.
> > >
> > > It makes my test box able to boot and build a kernel on XFS, so while I
> > > see what you're saying (I think), it doesn't appear to instantly show.
> > >
> > > Should I run xfstests or something to further verify things are OK? Does
> > > that need a scratch partition (I keep forgetting how to run that stuff
> > > :/).
> > >
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > index 66011c9f5df3..de91cdce9460 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > @@ -4756,10 +4756,14 @@ void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c)
> > > {
> > > struct task_struct *cur = current;
> > >
> > > - if (cur->xhlocks) {
> > > - cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c] = cur->xhlock_idx;
> > > - cur->hist_id_save[c] = cur->hist_id;
> > > - }
> > > + if (!cur->xhlocks)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + if (c == XHLOCK_PROC)
> > > + invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(cur->xhlock_idx));
> >
> > We have to detect dependecies if it exists, even in the following case:
> >
> > oooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.........
> > |<- range for commit ->|
> >
> > where
> > o: acquisition outside of each work,
> > i: acquisition inside of each work,
> >
> > With yours, we can never detect dependecies wrt 'o'.
>
> There really shouldn't be any o's when you call

There can be any o's.

> crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC), it should denote the bottom of a

No, I don't think so. It can be either the bottom or not.

hist_start() and hist_end() is only for special contexts which need roll
back on exit e.g. irq, work and so on. Normal kernel context should work
well w/o hist_start() or hist_end().

> context, see:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170301104328.GD6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net

Actually, I don't agree with that.

> And in that respect you placed the calls wrongly in process_one_work(),

Why is it wrong? It's intended. Could you tell me why?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-23 04:13    [W:0.075 / U:15.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site