lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH v4 01/30] locking/lockdep: Rename deadlock check functions
Date
In lockdep, deadlock checkings are carried out at two places:

- In current task's held lock stack, check lock recursion deadlock scenarios.
- In dependency graph, check lock inversion deadlock scenarios.

Rename these two relevant functions for later use. Plus, with recursive-read
locks, only a dependency circle in lock graph is not sufficient condition
for lock inversion deadlocks anymore, so check_noncircular() is not entirely
accurate.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 15 ++++++++-------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 3c3902c..3c89a50 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1782,8 +1782,8 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
* Print an error and return 0 if it does.
*/
static noinline int
-check_noncircular(struct held_lock *src, struct held_lock *target,
- struct lock_trace **const trace)
+check_deadlock_graph(struct held_lock *src, struct held_lock *target,
+ struct lock_trace **const trace)
{
int ret;
struct lock_list *uninitialized_var(target_entry);
@@ -2372,7 +2372,8 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
}

/*
- * Check whether we are holding such a class already.
+ * Check whether we are holding such a class already in the current
+ * held lock stack.
*
* (Note that this has to be done separately, because the graph cannot
* detect such classes of deadlocks.)
@@ -2380,7 +2381,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
* Returns: 0 on deadlock detected, 1 on OK, 2 on recursive read
*/
static int
-check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
+check_deadlock_current(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
{
struct held_lock *prev;
struct held_lock *nest = NULL;
@@ -2465,7 +2466,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)

/*
* Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
- * create a circular dependency in the graph. (We do this by
+ * create a deadlock scenario in the graph. (We do this by
* a breadth-first search into the graph starting at <next>,
* and check whether we can reach <prev>.)
*
@@ -2473,7 +2474,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
* MAX_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_SIZE) which keeps track of a breadth of nodes
* in the graph whose neighbours are to be checked.
*/
- ret = check_noncircular(next, prev, trace);
+ ret = check_deadlock_graph(next, prev, trace);
if (unlikely(ret <= 0))
return 0;

@@ -2952,7 +2953,7 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr,
* The simple case: does the current hold the same lock
* already?
*/
- int ret = check_deadlock(curr, hlock);
+ int ret = check_deadlock_current(curr, hlock);

if (!ret)
return 0;
--
1.8.3.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-29 10:33    [W:0.114 / U:13.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site