Re: [PATCH v3] lockdep: restrict the use of recursive read_lock with qrwlock

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Jun 23 2014 - 03:09:21 EST


On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:22:46PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> v2->v3:
> - Add a new read mode (3) for rwlock (used in
> lock_acquire_shared_cond_recursive()) to avoid conflict with other
> use cases of lock_acquire_shared_recursive().
>
> v1->v2:
> - Use less conditional & make it easier to read
>
> Unlike the original unfair rwlock implementation, queued rwlock
> will grant lock according to the chronological sequence of the lock
> requests except when the lock requester is in the interrupt context.
> As a result, recursive read_lock calls will hang the process if there
> is a write_lock call somewhere in between the read_lock calls.
>
> This patch updates the lockdep implementation to look for recursive
> read_lock calls when queued rwlock is being used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>

So this Changelog really won't do. This vn->vn+1 nonsense should not be
part of the Changelog proper.

Also, you failed to mention what prompted you to write this patch; did
you find an offending site that now triggers a lockdep warning?

You also fail to mention that the new read state fits, but exhausts, the
storage in held_lock::read.

> ---
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index 008388f..0a53d88 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -481,13 +481,15 @@ static inline void print_irqtrace_events(struct task_struct *curr)
> #define lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 0, 1, n, i)
> #define lock_acquire_shared(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 1, 1, n, i)
> #define lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 2, 1, n, i)
> +#define lock_acquire_shared_cond_recursive(l, s, t, n, i) \
> + lock_acquire(l, s, t, 3, 1, n, i)
> #define spin_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, NULL, i)
> #define spin_acquire_nest(l, s, t, n, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, n, i)
> #define spin_release(l, n, i) lock_release(l, n, i)
>
> #define rwlock_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, NULL, i)
> -#define rwlock_acquire_read(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, NULL, i)
> +#define rwlock_acquire_read(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_shared_cond_recursive(l, s, t, NULL, i)

Yeah, no. Only the qrwlock has the new cond_recursive thing.

> #define rwlock_release(l, n, i) lock_release(l, n, i)
>
> #define seqcount_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t, NULL, i)
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index d24e433..7d90ebc 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,16 @@ module_param(lock_stat, int, 0644);
> #define lock_stat 0
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_QUEUE_RWLOCK
> +/*
> +* Queue rwlock only allows read-after-read recursion of the same lock class
> +* when the latter read is in an interrupt context.
> +*/
> +#define allow_recursive_read in_interrupt()
> +#else
> +#define allow_recursive_read true
> +#endif

That #ifdef is entirely inappropriate, the lockdep implementation should
not depend on this. Furthermore you now added a new read state with
variable semantics, that's crap.

> /*
> * lockdep_lock: protects the lockdep graph, the hashes and the
> * class/list/hash allocators.
> @@ -1774,6 +1784,12 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next,
> return 2;
>
> /*
> + * Conditionally recursive read-lock check
> + */
> + if ((read == 3) && prev->read && allow_recursive_read)
> + return 2;
> +
> + /*
> * We're holding the nest_lock, which serializes this lock's
> * nesting behaviour.
> */
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
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/