lockdep: lock protection locks
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 16:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > Taking more than a few locks of the same class at once is bad
> > news and it's better to find an alternative method.
>
> It's not always wrong.
>
> If you can guarantee that anybody that takes more than one lock of a
> particular class will always take a single top-level lock _first_, then
> that's all good. You can obviously screw up and take the same lock _twice_
> (which will deadlock), but at least you cannot get into ABBA situations.
>
> So maybe the right thing to do is to just teach lockdep about "lock
> protection locks". That would have solved the multi-queue issues for
> networking too - all the actual network drivers would still have taken
> just their single queue lock, but the one case that needs to take all of
> them would have taken a separate top-level lock first.
>
> Never mind that the multi-queue locks were always taken in the same order:
> it's never wrong to just have some top-level serialization, and anybody
> who needs to take <n> locks might as well do <n+1>, because they sure as
> hell aren't going to be on _any_ fastpaths.
>
> So the simplest solution really sounds like just teaching lockdep about
> that one special case. It's not "nesting" exactly, although it's obviously
> related to it.
Do as Linus suggested. The lock protection lock is called nest_lock.
Note that we still have the MAX_LOCK_DEPTH (48) limit to consider, so anything
that spills that it still up shit creek.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
index d3c72ad..410c336 100644
--- a/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -1372,18 +1372,32 @@
struct lockdep_map *next_instance, int read)
{
struct held_lock *prev;
+ struct held_lock *nest = NULL;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < curr->lockdep_depth; i++) {
prev = curr->held_locks + i;
+
+ if (prev->instance == next->nest_lock)
+ nest = prev;
+
if (hlock_class(prev) != hlock_class(next))
continue;
+
/*
* Allow read-after-read recursion of the same
* lock class (i.e. read_lock(lock)+read_lock(lock)):
*/
if ((read == 2) && prev->read)
return 2;
+
+ /*
+ * We're holding the nest_lock, which serializes this lock's
+ * nesting behaviour.
+ */
+ if (nest)
+ return 2;
+
return print_deadlock_bug(curr, prev, next);
}
return 1;
@@ -2507,7 +2521,7 @@
*/
static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
int trylock, int read, int check, int hardirqs_off,
- unsigned long ip)
+ struct lockdep_map *nest_lock, unsigned long ip)
{
struct task_struct *curr = current;
struct lock_class *class = NULL;
@@ -2566,6 +2580,7 @@
hlock->class_idx = class - lock_classes + 1;
hlock->acquire_ip = ip;
hlock->instance = lock;
+ hlock->nest_lock = nest_lock;
hlock->trylock = trylock;
hlock->read = read;
hlock->check = check;
@@ -2717,7 +2732,7 @@
if (!__lock_acquire(hlock->instance,
hlock_class(hlock)->subclass, hlock->trylock,
hlock->read, hlock->check, hlock->hardirqs_off,
- hlock->acquire_ip))
+ hlock->nest_lock, hlock->acquire_ip))
return 0;
}
@@ -2778,7 +2793,7 @@
if (!__lock_acquire(hlock->instance,
hlock_class(hlock)->subclass, hlock->trylock,
hlock->read, hlock->check, hlock->hardirqs_off,
- hlock->acquire_ip))
+ hlock->nest_lock, hlock->acquire_ip))
return 0;
}
@@ -2915,7 +2930,8 @@
* and also avoid lockdep recursion:
*/
void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
- int trylock, int read, int check, unsigned long ip)
+ int trylock, int read, int check,
+ struct lockdep_map *nest_lock, unsigned long ip)
{
unsigned long flags;
@@ -2930,7 +2946,7 @@
current->lockdep_recursion = 1;
__lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check,
- irqs_disabled_flags(flags), ip);
+ irqs_disabled_flags(flags), nest_lock, ip);
current->lockdep_recursion = 0;
raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
}