Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1251034
| From | j.glisse@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Fix expected depth value in __lock_release() |
| Date | 2015-10-19 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qlorM-5Hu-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
In __lock_release() we are removing one entry from the stack and
rebuilding the hash chain by re-adding entry above the entry we
just removed. If the entry removed was between 2 entry of same
class then this 2 entry might be coalesced into one single entry
which in turns means that the lockdep_depth value will not be
incremented and thus the expected lockdep_depth value after this
operation will be wrong triggering an unjustified WARN_ONCE() at
the end of __lock_release().
This patch adjust the expect depth value by decrementing it if
what was previously 2 entry inside the stack are coalesced into
only one entry.
Note that __lock_set_class() does not suffer from same issue as
it adds a new class and thus can not lead to coalescing of stack
entry.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 4e49cc4..cac5e21 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -3428,6 +3428,8 @@ found_it:
curr->curr_chain_key = hlock->prev_chain_key;
for (i++; i < depth; i++) {
+ int tmp = curr->lockdep_depth;
+
hlock = curr->held_locks + i;
if (!__lock_acquire(hlock->instance,
hlock_class(hlock)->subclass, hlock->trylock,
@@ -3435,6 +3437,13 @@ found_it:
hlock->nest_lock, hlock->acquire_ip,
hlock->references, hlock->pin_count))
return 0;
+ /*
+ * If nest_lock is true and the lock we just removed allow two
+ * lock of same class to be consolidated in only one held_lock
+ * then the lockdep_depth count will not increase as we expect
+ * it to. So adjust the expected depth value accordingly.
+ */
+ depth -= (curr->lockdep_depth == tmp);
}
/*
--
1.8.3.1
--
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
[PATCH] locking/lockdep: Fix expected depth value in __lock_release() j.glisse@gmail.com - 2015-10-19 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Fix expected depth value in __lock_release() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-20 14:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Fix expected depth value in __lock_release() Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 14:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Fix expected depth value in __lock_release() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-10-20 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Fix expected depth value in __lock_release() Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 16:50 +0200
csiph-web