Re: [RESEND PATCH 04/11] kernel:lockdep:implementcheck_noncircular() by BFS

[Dave Young]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:04:39PM +0800, tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This patch uses BFS to implement check_noncircular() and
> prints the generated shortest circle if exists.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/lockdep.c |   89 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
> index ce6d09e..f740088 100644
> --- a/kernel/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
> @@ -985,12 +985,7 @@ static inline int __bfs_backward(struct lock_list *src_entry,
>   * Recursive, forwards-direction lock-dependency checking, used for
>   * both noncyclic checking and for hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe
>   * checking.
> - *
> - * (to keep the stackframe of the recursive functions small we
> - *  use these global variables, and we also mark various helper
> - *  functions as noinline.)
>   */
> -static struct held_lock *check_source, *check_target;
>  
>  /*
>   * Print a dependency chain entry (this is only done when a deadlock
> @@ -1014,7 +1009,9 @@ print_circular_bug_entry(struct lock_list *target, unsigned int depth)
>   * header first:
>   */
>  static noinline int
> -print_circular_bug_header(struct lock_list *entry, unsigned int depth)
> +print_circular_bug_header(struct lock_list *entry, unsigned int depth,
> +			struct held_lock *check_src,
> +			struct held_lock *check_tgt)
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *curr = current;
>  
> @@ -1027,9 +1024,9 @@ print_circular_bug_header(struct lock_list *entry, unsigned int depth)
>  	printk(  "-------------------------------------------------------\n");
>  	printk("%s/%d is trying to acquire lock:\n",
>  		curr->comm, task_pid_nr(curr));
> -	print_lock(check_source);
> +	print_lock(check_src);
>  	printk("\nbut task is already holding lock:\n");
> -	print_lock(check_target);
> +	print_lock(check_tgt);
>  	printk("\nwhich lock already depends on the new lock.\n\n");
>  	printk("\nthe existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:\n");
>  
> @@ -1043,36 +1040,24 @@ static inline int class_equal(struct lock_list *entry, void *data)
>  	return entry->class == data;
>  }
>  
> -static noinline int print_circular_bug(void)
> +static noinline int print_circular_bug(struct lock_list *this,

Shouldn't be 'static noinline int' here? Same question to following ones.

> +				struct lock_list *target,
> +				struct held_lock *check_src,
> +				struct held_lock *check_tgt)
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *curr = current;
> -	struct lock_list this;
> -	struct lock_list *target;
>  	struct lock_list *parent;
> -	int result;
>  	unsigned long depth;
>  
>  	if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock() || debug_locks_silent)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	this.class = hlock_class(check_source);
> -	this.parent = NULL;
> -	if (!save_trace(&this.trace))
> +	if (!save_trace(&this->trace))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	result = __bfs_forward(&this,
> -			hlock_class(check_target),
> -			class_equal,
> -			&target);
> -	if (result) {
> -		printk("\n%s:search shortest path failed:%d\n", __func__,
> -			result);
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -
>  	depth = get_lock_depth(target);
>  
> -	print_circular_bug_header(target, depth);
> +	print_circular_bug_header(target, depth, check_src, check_tgt);
>  
>  	parent = get_lock_parent(target);
>  
> @@ -1090,6 +1075,16 @@ static noinline int print_circular_bug(void)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int noinline print_bfs_bug(int ret)
> +{
> +	if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	WARN(1, "lockdep bfs error:%d\n", ret);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  #define RECURSION_LIMIT 40
>  
>  static int noinline print_infinite_recursion_bug(void)
> @@ -1168,31 +1163,17 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
>   * lead to <target>. Print an error and return 0 if it does.
>   */
>  static noinline int
> -check_noncircular(struct lock_class *source, unsigned int depth)
> +check_noncircular(struct lock_list *root, struct lock_class *target,
> +		struct lock_list **target_entry)
>  {
> -	struct lock_list *entry;
> +	int result;
>  
> -	if (lockdep_dependency_visit(source, depth))
> -		return 1;
> +	debug_atomic_inc(&nr_cyclic_checks);
>  
> -	debug_atomic_inc(&nr_cyclic_check_recursions);
> -	if (depth > max_recursion_depth)
> -		max_recursion_depth = depth;
> -	if (depth >= RECURSION_LIMIT)
> -		return print_infinite_recursion_bug();
> -	/*
> -	 * Check this lock's dependency list:
> -	 */
> -	list_for_each_entry(entry, &source->locks_after, entry) {
> -		if (entry->class == hlock_class(check_target))
> -			return 2;
> -		debug_atomic_inc(&nr_cyclic_checks);
> -		if (check_noncircular(entry->class, depth+1) == 2)
> -			return 2;
> -	}
> -	return 1;
> -}
> +	result = __bfs_forward(root, target, class_equal, target_entry);
>  
> +	return result;
> +}
>  
>  #if defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS) && defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)
>  /*
> @@ -1586,6 +1567,8 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
>  {
>  	struct lock_list *entry;
>  	int ret;
> +	struct lock_list this;
> +	struct lock_list *uninitialized_var(target_entry);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
> @@ -1596,11 +1579,13 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
>  	 * We are using global variables to control the recursion, to
>  	 * keep the stackframe size of the recursive functions low:
>  	 */
> -	check_source = next;
> -	check_target = prev;
> -
> -	if (check_noncircular(hlock_class(next), 0) == 2)
> -		return print_circular_bug();
> +	this.class = hlock_class(next);
> +	this.parent = NULL;
> +	ret = check_noncircular(&this, hlock_class(prev), &target_entry);
> +	if (unlikely(!ret))
> +		return print_circular_bug(&this, target_entry, next, prev);
> +	else if (unlikely(ret < 0))
> +		return print_bfs_bug(ret);
>  
>  	if (!check_prev_add_irq(curr, prev, next))
>  		return 0;
> -- 
> 1.6.0.GIT
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/