Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
大约 1 年 前同步成功

通知 156
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 19 6月, 2015 1 次提交
  3. 17 4月, 2015 1 次提交
    • P
      lockdep: Make print_lock() robust against concurrent release · d7bc3197
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      During sysrq's show-held-locks command it is possible that
hlock_class() returns NULL for a given lock. The result is then (after
the warning):

	|BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000001c
	|IP: [<c1088145>] get_usage_chars+0x5/0x100
	|Call Trace:
	| [<c1088263>] print_lock_name+0x23/0x60
	| [<c1576b57>] print_lock+0x5d/0x7e
	| [<c1088314>] lockdep_print_held_locks+0x74/0xe0
	| [<c1088652>] debug_show_all_locks+0x132/0x1b0
	| [<c1315c48>] sysrq_handle_showlocks+0x8/0x10

This *might* happen because the thread on the other CPU drops the lock
after we are looking ->lockdep_depth and ->held_locks points no longer
to a lock that is held.

The fix here is to simply ignore it and continue.
Reported-by: NAndreas Messerschmid <andreas@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      d7bc3197
  5. 23 3月, 2015 1 次提交
    • P
      lockdep: Fix the module unload key range freeing logic · 35a9393c
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      Module unload calls lockdep_free_key_range(), which removes entries
from the data structures. Most of the lockdep code OTOH assumes the
data structures are append only; in specific see the comments in
add_lock_to_list() and look_up_lock_class().

Clearly this has only worked by accident; make it work proper. The
actual scenario to make it go boom would involve the memory freed by
the module unlock being re-allocated and re-used for a lock inside of
a rcu-sched grace period. This is a very unlikely scenario, still
better plug the hole.

Use RCU list iteration in all places and ammend the comments.

Change lockdep_free_key_range() to issue a sync_sched() between
removal from the lists and returning -- which results in the memory
being freed. Further ensure the callers are placed correctly and
comment the requirements.
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrey Tsyvarev <tsyvarev@ispras.ru>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      35a9393c
  7. 03 10月, 2014 1 次提交
    • P
      locking/lockdep: Revert qrwlock recusive stuff · 8acd91e8
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      Commit f0bab73c ("locking/lockdep: Restrict the use of recursive
read_lock() with qrwlock") changed lockdep to try and conform to the
qrwlock semantics which differ from the traditional rwlock semantics.

In particular qrwlock is fair outside of interrupt context, but in
interrupt context readers will ignore all fairness.

The problem modeling this is that read and write side have different
lock state (interrupts) semantics but we only have a single
representation of these. Therefore lockdep will get confused, thinking
the lock can cause interrupt lock inversions.

So revert it for now; the old rwlock semantics were already imperfectly
modeled and the qrwlock extra won't fit either.

If we want to properly fix this, I think we need to resurrect the work
by Gautham did a few years ago that split the read and write state of
locks:

   http://lwn.net/Articles/332801/

FWIW the locking selftest that would've failed (and was reported by
Borislav earlier) is something like:

  RL(X1);	/* IRQ-ON */
  LOCK(A);
  UNLOCK(A);
  RU(X1);

  IRQ_ENTER();
  RL(X1);	/* IN-IRQ */
  RU(X1);
  IRQ_EXIT();

At which point it would report that because A is an IRQ-unsafe lock we
can suffer the following inversion:

	CPU0		CPU1

	lock(A)
			lock(X1)
			lock(A)
	<IRQ>
	 lock(X1)

And this is 'wrong' because X1 can recurse (assuming the above lock are
in fact read-lock) but lockdep doesn't know about this.
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: bp@alien8.de
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140930132600.GA7444@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.netSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      8acd91e8
  9. 13 8月, 2014 1 次提交
    • W
      locking/lockdep: Restrict the use of recursive read_lock() with qrwlock · f0bab73c
      由 Waiman Long 提交于 
      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.
Consequently, recursive read_lock calls will now 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. A new read state (3) is used to mark those read_lock
call that cannot be recursively called except in the interrupt
context. The new read state does exhaust the 2 bits available in
held_lock:read bit field. The addition of any new read state in the
future may require a redesign of how all those bits are squeezed
together in the held_lock structure.
Signed-off-by: NWaiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1407345722-61615-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      f0bab73c
  11. 17 7月, 2014 1 次提交
  13. 06 5月, 2014 1 次提交
  15. 14 2月, 2014 2 次提交
  17. 10 2月, 2014 3 次提交
    • O
      lockdep: Change mark_held_locks() to check hlock->check instead of lockdep_no_validate · 34d0ed5e
      由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于 
      The __lockdep_no_validate check in mark_held_locks() adds the subtle
and (afaics) unnecessary difference between no-validate and check==0.
And this looks even more inconsistent because __lock_acquire() skips
mark_irqflags()->mark_lock() if !check.

Change mark_held_locks() to check hlock->check instead.
Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140120182013.GA26505@redhat.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      34d0ed5e
    • O
      lockdep: Don't create the wrong dependency on hlock->check == 0 · 1b5ff816
      由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于 
      Test-case:

	DEFINE_MUTEX(m1);
	DEFINE_MUTEX(m2);
	DEFINE_MUTEX(mx);

	void lockdep_should_complain(void)
	{
		lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx);

		// m1 -> mx -> m2
		mutex_lock(&m1);
		mutex_lock(&mx);
		mutex_lock(&m2);
		mutex_unlock(&m2);
		mutex_unlock(&mx);
		mutex_unlock(&m1);

		// m2 -> m1 ; should trigger the warning
		mutex_lock(&m2);
		mutex_lock(&m1);
		mutex_unlock(&m1);
		mutex_unlock(&m2);
	}

this doesn't trigger any warning, lockdep can't detect the trivial
deadlock.

This is because lock(&mx) correctly avoids m1 -> mx dependency, it
skips validate_chain() due to mx->check == 0. But lock(&m2) wrongly
adds mx -> m2 and thus m1 -> m2 is not created.

rcu_lock_acquire()->lock_acquire(check => 0) is fine due to read == 2,
so currently only __lockdep_no_validate__ can trigger this problem.
Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140120182010.GA26498@redhat.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      1b5ff816
    • O
      lockdep: Make held_lock->check and "int check" argument bool · fb9edbe9
      由 Oleg Nesterov 提交于 
      The "int check" argument of lock_acquire() and held_lock->check are
misleading. This is actually a boolean: 2 means "true", everything
else is "false".

And there is no need to pass 1 or 0 to lock_acquire() depending on
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, __lock_acquire() checks prove_locking at the
start and clears "check" if !CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING.

Note: probably we can simply kill this member/arg. The only explicit
user of check => 0 is rcu_lock_acquire(), perhaps we can change it to
use lock_acquire(trylock =>, read => 2). __lockdep_no_validate means
check => 0 implicitly, but we can change validate_chain() to check
hlock->instance->key instead. Not to mention it would be nice to get
rid of lockdep_set_novalidate_class().
Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140120182006.GA26495@redhat.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      fb9edbe9
  19. 27 11月, 2013 1 次提交
  21. 13 11月, 2013 1 次提交
  23. 06 11月, 2013 1 次提交
  25. 25 9月, 2013 1 次提交
  27. 12 5月, 2013 1 次提交
  29. 26 4月, 2013 2 次提交
  31. 08 4月, 2013 1 次提交
  33. 01 4月, 2013 1 次提交
    • P
      Revert "lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time" · dbf520a9
      由 Paul Walmsley 提交于 
      This reverts commit 6aa97070.

Commit 6aa97070 ("lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time")
causes problems with NFS root filesystems.  The failures were noticed on
OMAP2 and 3 boards during kernel init:

  [ BUG: swapper/0/1 still has locks held! ]
  3.9.0-rc3-00344-ga937536b #1 Not tainted
  -------------------------------------
  1 lock held by swapper/0/1:
   #0:  (&type->s_umount_key#13/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<c011e84c>] sget+0x248/0x574

  stack backtrace:
    rpc_wait_bit_killable
    __wait_on_bit
    out_of_line_wait_on_bit
    __rpc_execute
    rpc_run_task
    rpc_call_sync
    nfs_proc_get_root
    nfs_get_root
    nfs_fs_mount_common
    nfs_try_mount
    nfs_fs_mount
    mount_fs
    vfs_kern_mount
    do_mount
    sys_mount
    do_mount_root
    mount_root
    prepare_namespace
    kernel_init_freeable
    kernel_init

Although the rootfs mounts, the system is unstable.  Here's a transcript
from a PM test:

  http://www.pwsan.com/omap/testlogs/test_v3.9-rc3/20130317194234/pm/37xxevm/37xxevm_log.txt

Here's what the test log should look like:

  http://www.pwsan.com/omap/testlogs/test_v3.8/20130218214403/pm/37xxevm/37xxevm_log.txt

Mailing list discussion is here:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/4/221

Deal with this for v3.9 by reverting the problem commit, until folks can
figure out the right long-term course of action.
Signed-off-by: NPaul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Cc: <maciej.rutecki@gmail.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      dbf520a9
  35. 24 3月, 2013 1 次提交
    • K
      Export __lockdep_no_validate__ · ea6749c7
      由 Kent Overstreet 提交于 
      Hack, but bcache needs a way around lockdep for locking during garbage
collection - we need to keep multiple btree nodes locked for coalescing
and rw_lock_nested() isn't really sufficient or appropriate here.
Signed-off-by: NKent Overstreet <koverstreet@google.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
      ea6749c7
  37. 28 2月, 2013 1 次提交
  39. 19 2月, 2013 2 次提交
  41. 13 9月, 2012 1 次提交
  43. 22 2月, 2012 1 次提交
  45. 12 12月, 2011 1 次提交
  47. 07 12月, 2011 1 次提交
  49. 06 12月, 2011 3 次提交
  51. 14 11月, 2011 1 次提交
  53. 08 11月, 2011 1 次提交
    • S
      lockdep: Show subclass in pretty print of lockdep output · e5e78d08
      由 Steven Rostedt 提交于 
      The pretty print of the lockdep debug splat uses just the lock name
to show how the locking scenario happens. But when it comes to
nesting locks, the output becomes confusing which takes away the point
of the pretty printing of the lock scenario.

Without displaying the subclass info, we get the following output:

  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   lock(slock-AF_INET);
                                lock(slock-AF_INET);
                                lock(slock-AF_INET);
   lock(slock-AF_INET);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

The above looks more of a A->A locking bug than a A->B B->A.
By adding the subclass to the output, we can see what really happened:

 other info that might help us debug this:

  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   lock(slock-AF_INET);
                                lock(slock-AF_INET/1);
                                lock(slock-AF_INET);
   lock(slock-AF_INET/1);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

This bug was discovered while tracking down a real bug caught by lockdep.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20111025202049.GB25043@hostway.ca

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reported-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: NSimon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca>
Signed-off-by: NSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
      e5e78d08
  55. 29 9月, 2011 1 次提交
    • P
      rcu: Restore checks for blocking in RCU read-side critical sections · b3fbab05
      由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于 
      Long ago, using TREE_RCU with PREEMPT would result in "scheduling
while atomic" diagnostics if you blocked in an RCU read-side critical
section.  However, PREEMPT now implies TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, which defeats
this diagnostic.  This commit therefore adds a replacement diagnostic
based on PROVE_RCU.

Because rcu_lockdep_assert() and lockdep_rcu_dereference() are now being
used for things that have nothing to do with rcu_dereference(), rename
lockdep_rcu_dereference() to lockdep_rcu_suspicious() and add a third
argument that is a string indicating what is suspicious.  This third
argument is passed in from a new third argument to rcu_lockdep_assert().
Update all calls to rcu_lockdep_assert() to add an informative third
argument.

Also, add a pair of rcu_lockdep_assert() calls from within
rcu_note_context_switch(), one complaining if a context switch occurs
in an RCU-bh read-side critical section and another complaining if a
context switch occurs in an RCU-sched read-side critical section.
These are present only if the PROVE_RCU kernel parameter is enabled.

Finally, fix some checkpatch whitespace complaints in lockdep.c.

Again, you must enable PROVE_RCU to see these new diagnostics.  But you
are enabling PROVE_RCU to check out new RCU uses in any case, aren't you?
Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
      b3fbab05
  57. 18 9月, 2011 1 次提交
  59. 09 8月, 2011 1 次提交
  61. 04 8月, 2011 3 次提交