Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1204287
| From | Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [Question] lockdep: Is nested lock handled correctly? |
| Date | 2015-08-10 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pVVCG-7X5-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pVS27-2wD-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <pVTKx-5eW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Peter, On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:42:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 05:52:47PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > 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); Sorry for the typo here.. should be spin_lock_nest_lock(). > > spin_unlock(&lock_Y1); > > spin_unlock(&lock_X2); > > spin_unlock(&lock_X1); > > > > > > This is totally legal in current lockdep rules, right? > > Yuck, I'd say no. That's quite horrible. > I admit that I didn't find this is horrible at first, but now I agree with you, this is not a rational locking order. Thank you. > Why would you ever want to do that? Though I don't want to have a locking order like that either, we can't stop others from using that order(maybe a good design review will) and lockdep yells something -unrelated- in such an order. I think we can either let lockdep complain if some one uses this locking order or clean up current code a little bit to tolarent this. If you really think we should do something about it, I can write the patch and add test cases. Thank you anyway. Regards, Boqun -- 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 — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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