Re: [PATCH v2] locking/lockdep: Fix meaningless usages output of lock classes

From: Waiman Long
Date: Mon Jun 28 2021 - 17:18:31 EST


On 6/28/21 11:17 AM, Xiongwei Song wrote:
From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@xxxxxxxxx>

When enabling CONFIG_LOCK_STAT, then CONFIG_LOCKDEP is forcedly enabled.
We can get output from /proc/lockdep, which currently includes usages of
lock classes. But the usages are meaningless, see the output below:

/ # cat /proc/lockdep
all lock classes:
ffffffff9af63350 ....: cgroup_mutex

ffffffff9af54eb8 ....: (console_sem).lock

ffffffff9af54e60 ....: console_lock

ffffffff9ae74c38 ....: console_owner_lock

ffffffff9ae74c80 ....: console_owner

ffffffff9ae66e60 ....: cpu_hotplug_lock

Only one usage context for each lock, this is because each usage is only
changed in mark_lock() that is in CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING defined section,
however in the test situation, it's not.

The fix is to move the usages reading and seq_print from
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING undefined setcion to its defined section. Also,
locks_after list of lock_class is empty when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
undefined, so do the same thing as what have done for usages of lock
classes.
With this patch, CONFIG_LOCKDEP without CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING will make /proc/lockdep displays just the list of lock classes with their associated lock keys. I think it is worth explicitly saying that in the commit log.
Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@xxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c
index 806978314496..a1ec2652d492 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep_proc.c
@@ -70,23 +70,25 @@ static int l_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP
seq_printf(m, " OPS:%8ld", debug_class_ops_read(class));
#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
- seq_printf(m, " FD:%5ld", lockdep_count_forward_deps(class));
- seq_printf(m, " BD:%5ld", lockdep_count_backward_deps(class));
-#endif
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
+ seq_printf(m, " FD:%5ld", lockdep_count_forward_deps(class));
+ seq_printf(m, " BD:%5ld", lockdep_count_backward_deps(class));
- get_usage_chars(class, usage);
- seq_printf(m, " %s", usage);
+ get_usage_chars(class, usage);
+ seq_printf(m, " %s", usage);
+ }
seq_printf(m, ": ");
print_name(m, class);
seq_puts(m, "\n");
- list_for_each_entry(entry, &class->locks_after, entry) {
- if (entry->distance == 1) {
- seq_printf(m, " -> [%p] ", entry->class->key);
- print_name(m, entry->class);
- seq_puts(m, "\n");
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
+ list_for_each_entry(entry, &class->locks_after, entry) {
+ if (entry->distance == 1) {
+ seq_printf(m, " -> [%p] ", entry->class->key);
+ print_name(m, entry->class);
+ seq_puts(m, "\n");
+ }
}
}
seq_puts(m, "\n");

Maybe you can remove the blank lines in this case by moving the last seq_puts() inside the if loop. The blank lines are not really needed without the associated locks_after information.

Cheers,
Longman