linux-toradex.git/include/linux/lockdep.h, branch v4.14-rc7

locking/lockdep: Untangle xhlock history save/restore from task independence

2017-08-29T13:14:38+00:00

Where XHLOCK_{SOFT,HARD} are save/restore points in the xhlocks[] to
ensure the temporal IRQ events don't interact with task state, the
XHLOCK_PROC is a fundament different beast that just happens to share
the interface.

The purpose of XHLOCK_PROC is to annotate independent execution inside
one task. For example workqueues, each work should appear to run in its
own 'pristine' 'task'.

Remove XHLOCK_PROC in favour of its own interface to avoid confusion.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: Byungchul Park 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: david@fromorbit.com
Cc: johannes@sipsolutions.net
Cc: kernel-team@lge.com
Cc: oleg@redhat.com
Cc: tj@kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170829085939.ggmb6xiohw67micb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation

2017-08-25T09:06:33+00:00

The new completion/crossrelease annotations interact unfavourable with
the extant flush_work()/flush_workqueue() annotations.

The problem is that when a single work class does:

  wait_for_completion(&C)

and

  complete(&C)

in different executions, we'll build dependencies like:

  lock_map_acquire(W)
  complete_acquire(C)

and

  lock_map_acquire(W)
  complete_release(C)

which results in the dependency chain: W->C->W, which lockdep thinks
spells deadlock, even though there is no deadlock potential since
works are ran concurrently.

One possibility would be to change the work 'lock' to recursive-read,
but that would mean hitting a lockdep limitation on recursive locks.
Also, unconditinoally switching to recursive-read here would fail to
detect the actual deadlock on single-threaded workqueues, which do
have a problem with this.

For now, forcefully disregard these locks for crossrelease.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Acked-by: Tejun Heo 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: byungchul.park@lge.com
Cc: david@fromorbit.com
Cc: johannes@sipsolutions.net
Cc: oleg@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Explicitly initialize wq_barrier::done::map

2017-08-17T10:12:33+00:00

With the new lockdep crossrelease feature, which checks completions usage,
a false positive is reported in the workqueue code:

> Worker A : acquired of wfc.work -> wait for cpu_hotplug_lock to be released
> Task   B : acquired of cpu_hotplug_lock -> wait for lock#3 to be released
> Task   C : acquired of lock#3 -> wait for completion of barr->done
> (Task C is in lru_add_drain_all_cpuslocked())
> Worker D : wait for wfc.work to be released -> will complete barr->done

Such a dead lock can not happen because Task C's barr->done and Worker D's
barr->done can not be the same instance.

The reason of this false positive is we initialize all wq_barrier::done
at insert_wq_barrier() via init_completion(), which makes them belong to
the same lock class, therefore, impossible circles are reported.

To fix this, explicitly initialize the lockdep map for wq_barrier::done
in insert_wq_barrier(), so that the lock class key of wq_barrier::done
is a subkey of the corresponding work_struct, as a result we won't build
a dependency between a wq_barrier with a unrelated work, and we can
differ wq barriers based on the related works, so the false positive
above is avoided.

Also define the empty lockdep_init_map_crosslock() for !CROSSRELEASE
to make the code simple and away from unnecessary #ifdefs.

Reported-by: Ingo Molnar 
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng 
Cc: Byungchul Park 
Cc: Lai Jiangshan 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Tejun Heo 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170817094622.12915-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Handle non(or multi)-acquisition of a crosslock

2017-08-10T10:29:08+00:00

No acquisition might be in progress on commit of a crosslock. Completion
operations enabling crossrelease are the case like:

   CONTEXT X                         CONTEXT Y
   ---------                         ---------
   trigger completion context
                                     complete AX
                                        commit AX
   wait_for_complete AX
      acquire AX
      wait

   where AX is a crosslock.

When no acquisition is in progress, we should not perform commit because
the lock does not exist, which might cause incorrect memory access. So
we have to track the number of acquisitions of a crosslock to handle it.

Moreover, in case that more than one acquisition of a crosslock are
overlapped like:

   CONTEXT W        CONTEXT X        CONTEXT Y        CONTEXT Z
   ---------        ---------        ---------        ---------
   acquire AX (gen_id: 1)
                                     acquire A
                    acquire AX (gen_id: 10)
                                     acquire B
                                     commit AX
                                                      acquire C
                                                      commit AX

   where A, B and C are typical locks and AX is a crosslock.

Current crossrelease code performs commits in Y and Z with gen_id = 10.
However, we can use gen_id = 1 to do it, since not only 'acquire AX in X'
but 'acquire AX in W' also depends on each acquisition in Y and Z until
their commits. So make it use gen_id = 1 instead of 10 on their commits,
which adds an additional dependency 'AX -> A' in the example above.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: kernel-team@lge.com
Cc: kirill@shutemov.name
Cc: npiggin@gmail.com
Cc: walken@google.com
Cc: willy@infradead.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1502089981-21272-8-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Detect and handle hist_lock ring buffer overwrite

2017-08-10T10:29:08+00:00

The ring buffer can be overwritten by hardirq/softirq/work contexts.
That cases must be considered on rollback or commit. For example,

          |<------ hist_lock ring buffer size ----->|
          ppppppppppppiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
wrapped > iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii....................

          where 'p' represents an acquisition in process context,
          'i' represents an acquisition in irq context.

On irq exit, crossrelease tries to rollback idx to original position,
but it should not because the entry already has been invalid by
overwriting 'i'. Avoid rollback or commit for entries overwritten.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: kernel-team@lge.com
Cc: kirill@shutemov.name
Cc: npiggin@gmail.com
Cc: walken@google.com
Cc: willy@infradead.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1502089981-21272-7-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Implement the 'crossrelease' feature

2017-08-10T10:29:07+00:00

Lockdep is a runtime locking correctness validator that detects and
reports a deadlock or its possibility by checking dependencies between
locks. It's useful since it does not report just an actual deadlock but
also the possibility of a deadlock that has not actually happened yet.
That enables problems to be fixed before they affect real systems.

However, this facility is only applicable to typical locks, such as
spinlocks and mutexes, which are normally released within the context in
which they were acquired. However, synchronization primitives like page
locks or completions, which are allowed to be released in any context,
also create dependencies and can cause a deadlock.

So lockdep should track these locks to do a better job. The 'crossrelease'
implementation makes these primitives also be tracked.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: kernel-team@lge.com
Cc: kirill@shutemov.name
Cc: npiggin@gmail.com
Cc: walken@google.com
Cc: willy@infradead.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1502089981-21272-6-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation

2017-08-10T10:29:03+00:00

A while ago someone, and I cannot find the email just now, asked if we
could not implement the RECLAIM_FS inversion stuff with a 'fake' lock
like we use for other things like workqueues etc. I think this should
be possible which allows reducing the 'irq' states and will reduce the
amount of __bfs() lookups we do.

Removing the 1 IRQ state results in 4 less __bfs() walks per
dependency, improving lockdep performance. And by moving this
annotation out of the lockdep code it becomes easier for the mm people
to extend.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: Byungchul Park 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Mel Gorman 
Cc: Michal Hocko 
Cc: Nikolay Borisov 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com
Cc: kernel-team@lge.com
Cc: kirill@shutemov.name
Cc: npiggin@gmail.com
Cc: walken@google.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Add new check to lock_downgrade()

2017-03-16T08:57:07+00:00

Commit:

  f8319483f57f ("locking/lockdep: Provide a type check for lock_is_held")

didn't fully cover rwsems as downgrade_write() was left out.

Introduce lock_downgrade() and use it to add new checks.

See-also: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148581164003149&w=2
Originally-written-by: Peter Zijlstra 
Signed-off-by: J. R. Okajima 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Cc: Andrew Morton 
Cc: Linus Torvalds 
Cc: Paul E. McKenney 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1486053497-9948-3-git-send-email-hooanon05g@gmail.com
[ Rewrote the changelog. ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/lockdep: Provide a type check for lock_is_held

2016-11-30T03:32:25+00:00

Christoph requested lockdep_assert_held() variants that distinguish
between held-for-read or held-for-write.

Provide:

  int lock_is_held_type(struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)

which takes the same argument as lock_acquire(.read) and matches it to
the held_lock instance.

Use of this function should be gated by the debug_locks variable. When
that is 0 the return value of the lock_is_held_type() function is
undefined. This is done to allow both negative and positive tests for
holding locks.

By default we provide (positive) lockdep_assert_held{,_exclusive,_read}()
macros.

Requested-by: Christoph Hellwig 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Tested-by: Jens Axboe 
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong 
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner

lockdep: make MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES unconditionally visible

2016-09-24T08:48:32+00:00

This define is needed by i2c_adapter_depth() to detect if we don't
exceed the maximum number of lock subclasses. Make it visible even
if lockdep is disabled.

Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski 
Acked-by: Peter Rosin 
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang