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 08/30] locking/lockdep: Skip checks if direct dependency is already present
Date
Given a dependency <prev> -> <next>, two checks are performed:

1. Lock inversion deadlock:

We search whether there is a path from <next> to <prev> in the dependency
graph and if so we have a potential deadlock scenario in check_deadlock_graph().
But if the direct dependency <prev> -> <next> is already in the graph, there
can't be such a path (i.e., <next> to <prev>) because otherwise this path
would have been found when adding the last critical dependency that
completes the circle.

2. IRQ usage violation:

The IRQ usage check searches whether there is a path through <prev> to
<next> that connects an irq-safe lock to an irq-unsafe lock in the
dependency graph in check_irq_usage(). Similarly, if <prev> -> <next> is
already in the graph, there can't be such a path either.

This check skipping should be able to greatly improve performance by
reducing the number of deadlock and IRQ usage checks. This number precisely
equals nr_redundant, which actually is not a small number.

Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 4838c99..de088da 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2433,6 +2433,25 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
}

/*
+ * Is the <prev> -> <next> dependency already present?
+ *
+ * (this may occur even though this is a new chain: consider
+ * e.g. the L1 -> L2 -> L3 -> L4 and the L5 -> L1 -> L2 -> L3
+ * chains - the second one will be new, but L1 already has
+ * L2 added to its dependency list, due to the first chain.)
+ */
+ list_for_each_entry(entry, &hlock_class(prev)->locks_after, entry) {
+ if (entry->class == hlock_class(next)) {
+ debug_atomic_inc(nr_redundant);
+
+ if (distance == 1)
+ entry->distance = 1;
+
+ return 1;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
* Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
* create a deadlock scenario in the graph. (We do this by
* a breadth-first search into the graph starting at <next>,
@@ -2459,21 +2478,6 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
*/
if (next->read == 2 || prev->read == 2)
return 1;
- /*
- * Is the <prev> -> <next> dependency already present?
- *
- * (this may occur even though this is a new chain: consider
- * e.g. the L1 -> L2 -> L3 -> L4 and the L5 -> L1 -> L2 -> L3
- * chains - the second one will be new, but L1 already has
- * L2 added to its dependency list, due to the first chain.)
- */
- list_for_each_entry(entry, &hlock_class(prev)->locks_after, entry) {
- if (entry->class == hlock_class(next)) {
- if (distance == 1)
- entry->distance = 1;
- return 1;
- }
- }

if (!*trace) {
*trace = save_trace();
--
1.8.3.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-29 10:33    [W:0.113 / U:14.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site