lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 23/28] locking/lockdep: Update irqsafe lock bitmaps
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:19:29PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> The bitmaps keep track of which locks are irqsafe. Update the bitmaps
> when there is new irqsafe usage and when an irqsafe lock is zapped.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 291cc9c..1b78216 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -3107,6 +3107,7 @@ typedef int (*check_usage_f)(struct task_struct *, struct held_lock *,
> int excl_bit = exclusive_bit(new_bit);
> int read = new_bit & LOCK_USAGE_READ_MASK;
> int dir = new_bit & LOCK_USAGE_DIR_MASK;
> + struct lock_class *lock = hlock_class(this);
>
> /*
> * mark USED_IN has to look forwards -- to ensure no dependency
> @@ -3119,6 +3120,25 @@ typedef int (*check_usage_f)(struct task_struct *, struct held_lock *,
> check_usage_backwards : check_usage_forwards;
>
> /*
> + * The bit is already marked so that we update the bitmaps
> + * before validation.
> + */
> + if (!dir) {
> + unsigned long *bitmaps[4] = {
> + lock_classes_hardirq_safe,
> + lock_classes_hardirq_safe_read,
> + lock_classes_softirq_safe,
> + lock_classes_softirq_safe_read

That again should be something CPP magic using lockdep_states.h.

Also, that array can be static const, right? It's just an index into the
static bitmaps.

> + };
> + int index = (new_bit >> 2) << 1;
> +
> + if (read)
> + index += 1;
> +
> + __set_bit(lock - lock_classes, bitmaps[index]);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> * Validate that this particular lock does not have conflicting
> * usage states.
> */
> @@ -3146,7 +3166,7 @@ typedef int (*check_usage_f)(struct task_struct *, struct held_lock *,
> return 0;
> }
>
> - if (state_verbose(new_bit, hlock_class(this)))
> + if (state_verbose(new_bit, lock))
> return 2;
>
> return 1;
> @@ -4650,6 +4670,22 @@ static void remove_class_from_lock_chains(struct pending_free *pf,
> }
> }
>
> +static inline void remove_irqsafe_lock_bitmap(struct lock_class *class)
> +{
> +#if defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS) && defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)
> + unsigned long usage = class->usage_mask;
> +
> + if (usage & LOCKF_USED_IN_HARDIRQ)
> + __clear_bit(class - lock_classes, lock_classes_hardirq_safe);
> + if (usage & LOCKF_USED_IN_HARDIRQ_READ)
> + __clear_bit(class - lock_classes, lock_classes_hardirq_safe_read);
> + if (usage & LOCKF_USED_IN_SOFTIRQ)
> + __clear_bit(class - lock_classes, lock_classes_softirq_safe);
> + if (usage & LOCKF_USED_IN_SOFTIRQ_READ)
> + __clear_bit(class - lock_classes, lock_classes_softirq_safe_read);

More CPP foo required here. Also, do we really need to test, we could
just unconditionally clear the bits.

> +#endif
> +}

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-25 21:56    [W:0.231 / U:16.528 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site