linux-toradex.git/kernel/locking/lockdep_internals.h, branch v6.16-rc5

locking/lockdep: Add number of dynamic keys to /proc/lockdep_stats

2025-05-06T16:34:43+00:00

There have been recent reports about running out of lockdep keys:

	MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS too low!

One possible reason is that too many dynamic keys have been registered.
A possible culprit is the lockdep_register_key() call in qdisc_alloc()
of net/sched/sch_generic.c.

Currently, there is no way to find out how many dynamic keys have been
registered. Add such a stat to the /proc/lockdep_stats to get better
clarity.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long 
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng 
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Cc: Bill Wendling 
Cc: Justin Stitt 
Cc: Nathan Chancellor 
Cc: Nick Desaulniers 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Will Deacon 
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250506042049.50060-4-boqun.feng@gmail.com

lockdep: Document MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS calculation

2024-12-15T19:49:35+00:00

Define a macro AVG_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_DEPTH to document the magic number '5'
used in the calculation of MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS. The number
represents the estimated average depth (number of locks held) of a lock
chain. The calculation of MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS was first added in
commit 443cd507ce7f ("lockdep: add lock_class information to lock_chain
and output it").

Suggested-by: Waiman Long 
Cc: Huang Ying 
Cc: J. R. Okajima 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Boqun Feng 
Cc: Ingo Molnar 
Cc: Will Deacon 
Acked-by: Waiman Long 
Signed-off-by: Carlos Llamas 
Acked-by: "Huang, Ying" 
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241024183631.643450-4-cmllamas@google.com

locking/lockdep: Iterate lock_classes directly when reading lockdep files

2022-02-16T14:57:58+00:00

When dumping lock_classes information via /proc/lockdep, we can't take
the lockdep lock as the lock hold time is indeterminate. Iterating
over all_lock_classes without holding lock can be dangerous as there
is a slight chance that it may branch off to other lists leading to
infinite loop or even access invalid memory if changes are made to
all_lock_classes list in parallel.

To avoid this problem, iteration of lock classes is now done directly
on the lock_classes array itself. The lock_classes_in_use bitmap is
checked to see if the lock class is being used. To avoid iterating
the full array all the times, a new max_lock_class_idx value is added
to track the maximum lock_class index that is currently being used.

We can theoretically take the lockdep lock for iterating all_lock_classes
when other lockdep files (lockdep_stats and lock_stat) are accessed as
the lock hold time will be shorter for them. For consistency, they are
also modified to iterate the lock_classes array directly.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220211035526.1329503-2-longman@redhat.com

lockdep: Allow tuning tracing capacity constants.

2021-04-05T11:33:57+00:00

Since syzkaller continues various test cases until the kernel crashes,
syzkaller tends to examine more locking dependencies than normal systems.
As a result, syzbot is reporting that the fuzz testing was terminated
due to hitting upper limits lockdep can track [1] [2] [3]. Since analysis
via /proc/lockdep* did not show any obvious culprit [4] [5], we have no
choice but allow tuning tracing capacity constants.

[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=3d97ba93fb3566000c1c59691ea427370d33ea1b
[2] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=381cb436fe60dc03d7fd2a092b46d7f09542a72a
[3] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=a588183ac34c1437fc0785e8f220e88282e5a29f
[4] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/4b8f7a57-fa20-47bd-48a0-ae35d860f233@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
[5] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1c351187-253b-2d49-acaf-4563c63ae7d2@i-love.sakura.ne.jp

References: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1595640639-9310-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa 
Acked-by: Dmitry Vyukov

lockdep: Fix usage_traceoverflow

2020-10-09T06:53:08+00:00

Basically print_lock_class_header()'s for loop is out of sync with the
the size of of ->usage_traces[].

Also clean things up a bit while at it, to avoid such mishaps in the future.

Fixes: 23870f122768 ("locking/lockdep: Fix "USED" <- "IN-NMI" inversions")
Reported-by: Qian Cai 
Debugged-by: Boqun Feng 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Tested-by: Qian Cai 
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200930094937.GE2651@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

locking/lockdep: Fix "USED" <- "IN-NMI" inversions

2020-09-03T09:19:42+00:00

During the LPC RCU BoF Paul asked how come the "USED" <- "IN-NMI"
detector doesn't trip over rcu_read_lock()'s lockdep annotation.

Looking into this I found a very embarrasing typo in
verify_lock_unused():

	-	if (!(class->usage_mask & LOCK_USED))
	+	if (!(class->usage_mask & LOCKF_USED))

fixing that will indeed cause rcu_read_lock() to insta-splat :/

The above typo means that instead of testing for: 0x100 (1 <<
LOCK_USED), we test for 8 (LOCK_USED), which corresponds to (1 <<
LOCK_ENABLED_HARDIRQ).

So instead of testing for _any_ used lock, it will only match any lock
used with interrupts enabled.

The rcu_read_lock() annotation uses .check=0, which means it will not
set any of the interrupt bits and will thus never match.

In order to properly fix the situation and allow rcu_read_lock() to
correctly work, split LOCK_USED into LOCK_USED and LOCK_USED_READ and by
having .read users set USED_READ and test USED, pure read-recursive
locks are permitted.

Fixes: f6f48e180404 ("lockdep: Teach lockdep about "USED" <- "IN-NMI" inversions")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Tested-by: Masami Hiramatsu 
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200902160323.GK1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

locking/lockdep: Reuse freed chain_hlocks entries

2020-02-11T12:10:52+00:00

Once a lock class is zapped, all the lock chains that include the zapped
class are essentially useless. The lock_chain structure itself can be
reused, but not the corresponding chain_hlocks[] entries. Over time,
we will run out of chain_hlocks entries while there are still plenty
of other lockdep array entries available.

To fix this imbalance, we have to make chain_hlocks entries reusable
just like the others. As the freed chain_hlocks entries are in blocks of
various lengths. A simple bitmap like the one used in the other reusable
lockdep arrays isn't applicable. Instead the chain_hlocks entries are
put into bucketed lists (MAX_CHAIN_BUCKETS) of chain blocks.  Bucket 0
is the variable size bucket which houses chain blocks of size larger than
MAX_CHAIN_BUCKETS sorted in decreasing size order.  Initially, the whole
array is in one chain block (the primordial chain block) in bucket 0.

The minimum size of a chain block is 2 chain_hlocks entries. That will
be the minimum allocation size. In other word, allocation requests
for one chain_hlocks entry will cause 2-entry block to be returned and
hence 1 entry will be wasted.

Allocation requests for the chain_hlocks are fulfilled first by looking
for chain block of matching size. If not found, the first chain block
from bucket[0] (the largest one) is split. That can cause hlock entries
fragmentation and reduce allocation efficiency if a chain block of size >
MAX_CHAIN_BUCKETS is ever zapped and put back to after the primordial
chain block. So the MAX_CHAIN_BUCKETS must be large enough that this
should seldom happen.

By reusing the chain_hlocks entries, we are able to handle workloads
that add and zap a lot of lock classes without the risk of running out
of chain_hlocks entries as long as the total number of outstanding lock
classes at any time remain within a reasonable limit.

Two new tracking counters, nr_free_chain_hlocks & nr_large_chain_blocks,
are added to track the total number of chain_hlocks entries in the
free bucketed lists and the number of large chain blocks in buckets[0]
respectively. The nr_free_chain_hlocks replaces nr_chain_hlocks.

The nr_large_chain_blocks counter enables to see if we should increase
the number of buckets (MAX_CHAIN_BUCKETS) available so as to avoid to
avoid the fragmentation problem in bucket[0].

An internal nfsd test that ran for more than an hour and kept on
loading and unloading kernel modules could cause the following message
to be displayed.

  [ 4318.443670] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!

The patched kernel was able to complete the test with a lot of free
chain_hlocks entries to spare:

  # cat /proc/lockdep_stats
     :
   dependency chains:                   18867 [max: 65536]
   dependency chain hlocks:             74926 [max: 327680]
   dependency chain hlocks lost:            0
     :
   zapped classes:                       1541
   zapped lock chains:                  56765
   large chain blocks:                      1

By changing MAX_CHAIN_BUCKETS to 3 and add a counter for the size of the
largest chain block. The system still worked and We got the following
lockdep_stats data:

   dependency chains:                   18601 [max: 65536]
   dependency chain hlocks used:        73133 [max: 327680]
   dependency chain hlocks lost:            0
     :
   zapped classes:                       1541
   zapped lock chains:                  56702
   large chain blocks:                  45165
   large chain block size:              20165

By running the test again, I was indeed able to cause chain_hlocks
entries to get lost:

   dependency chain hlocks used:        74806 [max: 327680]
   dependency chain hlocks lost:          575
     :
   large chain blocks:                  48737
   large chain block size:                  7

Due to the fragmentation, it is possible that the
"MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!" error can happen even if a lot of
of chain_hlocks entries appear to be free.

Fortunately, a MAX_CHAIN_BUCKETS value of 16 should be big enough that
few variable sized chain blocks, other than the initial one, should
ever be present in bucket 0.

Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra 
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200206152408.24165-7-longman@redhat.com

locking/lockdep: Track number of zapped lock chains

2020-02-11T12:10:51+00:00

Add a new counter nr_zapped_lock_chains to track the number lock chains
that have been removed.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200206152408.24165-6-longman@redhat.com

locking/lockdep: Throw away all lock chains with zapped class

2020-02-11T12:10:50+00:00

If a lock chain contains a class that is zapped, the whole lock chain is
likely to be invalid. If the zapped class is at the end of the chain,
the partial chain without the zapped class should have been stored
already as the current code will store all its predecessor chains. If
the zapped class is somewhere in the middle, there is no guarantee that
the partial chain will actually happen. It may just clutter up the hash
and make searching slower. I would rather prefer storing the chain only
when it actually happens.

So just dump the corresponding chain_hlocks entries for now. A latter
patch will try to reuse the freed chain_hlocks entries.

This patch also changes the type of nr_chain_hlocks to unsigned integer
to be consistent with the other counters.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200206152408.24165-5-longman@redhat.com

locking/lockdep: Track number of zapped classes

2020-02-11T12:10:49+00:00

The whole point of the lockdep dynamic key patch is to allow unused
locks to be removed from the lockdep data buffers so that existing
buffer space can be reused. However, there is no way to find out how
many unused locks are zapped and so we don't know if the zapping process
is working properly.

Add a new nr_zapped_classes counter to track that and show it in
/proc/lockdep_stats.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long 
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) 
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar 
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200206152408.24165-4-longman@redhat.com