Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1203958

[Question] lockdep: Is nested lock handled correctly?

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Peter and Ingo,

I'm now learning the code of lockdep and find that nested lock may not
be handled correctly because we fail to take held_lock merging into
consideration. I come up with an example and hope that could explain my
concern.

Please consider this lock/unlock sequence, I also put a patch ading this
sequence as a test into locking-selftest:

(lock_X1 and lock_X2 belong to the same lock class X, lock_Y1 belongs to
another lock class Y)

spin_lock(&lock_X1);
spin_lock(&lock_Y1);
spin_lock_nested_lock(&lock_X2, &lock_X1);
spin_unlock(&lock_Y1);
spin_unlock(&lock_X2);
spin_unlock(&lock_X1);


This is totally legal in current lockdep rules, right? But the states of
curr->held_locks stack after each lock/unlock show something
interesting:

0.	Initially:
	curr->held_locks is empty, curr->lockdep_depth: 0

1.	spin_lock(&lock_X1);
	curr->held_locks: H1(X), curr->lockdep_depth: 1

	H1(X) means a held_lock structure with ->class_idx pointing the
	class_idx of class X.

2.	spin_lock(&lock_Y1);
	curr->held_locks: H1(X)--H2(Y), curr->lockdep_depth: 2

3.	spin_lock_nested_lock(&lock_X2, &lock_X1);
	curr->held_locks: H1(X)--H2(Y)--H3(X),
	curr->lockdep_depth: 3

4.	spin_unlock(&lock_Y1);
	curr->held_locks: H1(X, references=2), curr->lockdep_depth:1
	
	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth - 1) in
	__lock_release() will be triggered, because lockdep_depth
	changes from 3 to 1!

...

This could happen in current lockdep code, and the reason is that when
releasing H2 in __lock_release(), lockdep will call __lock_acquire() to
"reacquire" H3, and __lock_acquire() detects H3 and H1 belong to the
same class, so it will merge H3 into H1.

Therefore "After releasing a held_lock in the stack, the lockdep_depth
will decrease by 1" is not true!

Besides, this hlock-merge-after-release also makes the reference
counting of held_lock goes wrong. Please consider this sequence:

spin_lock(&lock_X1);
spin_lock(&lock_Y1);
spin_lock_nested_lock(&lock_X2, &lock_X1);
spin_lock_nested_lock(&lock_X3, &lock_X2);
spin_unlock(&lock_Y1);
spin_unlock(&lock_X3);
spin_unlock(&lock_X2);
spin_unlock(&lock_X1);

After spin_unlock(&lock_Y1), the curr->held_locks will become:

curr->held_locks: H1(X, references=2), curr->lockdep_depth: 1

But, in fact, we have -three- locks held now.


It seems to me that our current code don't take
hlock-merge-after-release into consideration and this is a problem. Am I
missing something here?

Looking forward to your insight ;-)


Add a patch for test case, which is based on current tip/locking/core.
I compiled the kernel with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS and
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, and the test fails because
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth - 1) is triggered.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Boqun

---
 lib/locking-selftest.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
index 872a15a..00042f9 100644
--- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
+++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
@@ -1716,6 +1716,16 @@ static void ww_test_spin_context(void)
 	U(A);
 }
 
+static void bad_order_nested_spin_lock(void)
+{
+	raw_spin_lock(&lock_X1);
+	raw_spin_lock(&lock_Y1);
+	raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(&lock_X2, &lock_X1);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&lock_Y1); /* bad order here */
+	raw_spin_unlock(&lock_X2);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&lock_X1);
+}
+
 static void ww_tests(void)
 {
 	printk("  --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n");
@@ -1856,6 +1866,11 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
 	dotest(rsem_AA3, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
 	printk("\n");
 
+	print_testname("nested spin lock with bad order");
+	printk("|");
+	dotest(bad_order_nested_spin_lock, SUCCESS, LOCKTYPE_SPIN);
+	printk("\n");
+
 	printk("  --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n");
 
 	/*
-- 
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[Question] lockdep: Is nested lock handled correctly? Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 12:00 +0200
  Re: [Question] lockdep: Is nested lock handled correctly? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-08-10 13:50 +0200
    Re: [Question] lockdep: Is nested lock handled correctly? Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 15:50 +0200
      Re: [Question] lockdep: Is nested lock handled correctly? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-08-10 16:30 +0200
        Re: [Question] lockdep: Is nested lock handled correctly? Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 03:40 +0200

csiph-web