diff options
author | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> | 2017-08-29 10:59:39 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> | 2017-08-29 15:14:38 +0200 |
commit | f52be5708076b75a045ac52c6fef3fffb8300525 (patch) | |
tree | 8e98d8731a45427562e9429a2e763e74828acc27 /kernel | |
parent | 7b3d61cc73a1abe4c2c7eaf00093b338c8b233b0 (diff) |
locking/lockdep: Untangle xhlock history save/restore from task independence
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) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
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 <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel')
-rw-r--r-- | kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 79 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | kernel/workqueue.c | 9 |
2 files changed, 42 insertions, 46 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c index f73ca595b81e..44c8d0d17170 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c @@ -4623,13 +4623,8 @@ asmlinkage __visible void lockdep_sys_exit(void) /* * The lock history for each syscall should be independent. So wipe the * slate clean on return to userspace. - * - * crossrelease_hist_end() works well here even when getting here - * without starting (i.e. just after forking), because it rolls back - * the index to point to the last entry, which is already invalid. */ - crossrelease_hist_end(XHLOCK_PROC); - crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC, false); + lockdep_invariant_state(false); } void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s) @@ -4723,19 +4718,47 @@ static inline void invalidate_xhlock(struct hist_lock *xhlock) } /* - * Lock history stacks; we have 3 nested lock history stacks: + * Lock history stacks; we have 2 nested lock history stacks: * * HARD(IRQ) * SOFT(IRQ) - * PROC(ess) * * The thing is that once we complete a HARD/SOFT IRQ the future task locks * should not depend on any of the locks observed while running the IRQ. So * what we do is rewind the history buffer and erase all our knowledge of that * temporal event. - * - * The PROCess one is special though; it is used to annotate independence - * inside a task. + */ + +void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c) +{ + struct task_struct *cur = current; + + if (!cur->xhlocks) + return; + + cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c] = cur->xhlock_idx; + cur->hist_id_save[c] = cur->hist_id; +} + +void crossrelease_hist_end(enum xhlock_context_t c) +{ + struct task_struct *cur = current; + + if (cur->xhlocks) { + unsigned int idx = cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c]; + struct hist_lock *h = &xhlock(idx); + + cur->xhlock_idx = idx; + + /* Check if the ring was overwritten. */ + if (h->hist_id != cur->hist_id_save[c]) + invalidate_xhlock(h); + } +} + +/* + * lockdep_invariant_state() is used to annotate independence inside a task, to + * make one task look like multiple independent 'tasks'. * * Take for instance workqueues; each work is independent of the last. The * completion of a future work does not depend on the completion of a past work @@ -4758,40 +4781,14 @@ static inline void invalidate_xhlock(struct hist_lock *xhlock) * entry. Similarly, independence per-definition means it does not depend on * prior state. */ -void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c, bool force) +void lockdep_invariant_state(bool force) { - struct task_struct *cur = current; - - if (!cur->xhlocks) - return; - /* * We call this at an invariant point, no current state, no history. + * Verify the former, enforce the latter. */ - if (c == XHLOCK_PROC) { - /* verified the former, ensure the latter */ - WARN_ON_ONCE(!force && cur->lockdep_depth); - invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(cur->xhlock_idx)); - } - - cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c] = cur->xhlock_idx; - cur->hist_id_save[c] = cur->hist_id; -} - -void crossrelease_hist_end(enum xhlock_context_t c) -{ - struct task_struct *cur = current; - - if (cur->xhlocks) { - unsigned int idx = cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c]; - struct hist_lock *h = &xhlock(idx); - - cur->xhlock_idx = idx; - - /* Check if the ring was overwritten. */ - if (h->hist_id != cur->hist_id_save[c]) - invalidate_xhlock(h); - } + WARN_ON_ONCE(!force && current->lockdep_depth); + invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(current->xhlock_idx)); } static int cross_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock) diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index c0331891dec1..ab3c0dc8c7ed 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -2094,8 +2094,8 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock) lock_map_acquire(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map); lock_map_acquire(&lockdep_map); /* - * Strictly speaking we should do start(PROC) without holding any - * locks, that is, before these two lock_map_acquire()'s. + * Strictly speaking we should mark the invariant state without holding + * any locks, that is, before these two lock_map_acquire()'s. * * However, that would result in: * @@ -2107,14 +2107,14 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock) * Which would create W1->C->W1 dependencies, even though there is no * actual deadlock possible. There are two solutions, using a * read-recursive acquire on the work(queue) 'locks', but this will then - * hit the lockdep limitation on recursive locks, or simly discard + * hit the lockdep limitation on recursive locks, or simply discard * these locks. * * AFAICT there is no possible deadlock scenario between the * flush_work() and complete() primitives (except for single-threaded * workqueues), so hiding them isn't a problem. */ - crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC, true); + lockdep_invariant_state(true); trace_workqueue_execute_start(work); worker->current_func(work); /* @@ -2122,7 +2122,6 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock) * point will only record its address. */ trace_workqueue_execute_end(work); - crossrelease_hist_end(XHLOCK_PROC); lock_map_release(&lockdep_map); lock_map_release(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map); |