On Tue,  5 Sep 2017 16:57:47 -0500
Tom Zanussi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Change the order event_mutex and trace_types_lock are taken, to avoid
> circular dependencies and lockdep spew.
> 
> Changing the order shouldn't matter to any current code, but does to
> anything that takes the event_mutex first and then trace_types_lock.
> This is the case when calling tracing_set_clock from inside an event
> command, which already holds the event_mutex.

This is a very scary patch. I'll apply it and run a bunch of tests with
lockdep enabled. Let's see what blows up (or not).

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <[email protected]>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/trace_events.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> index c93540c..889802c 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> @@ -1406,8 +1406,8 @@ static int subsystem_open(struct inode *inode, struct 
> file *filp)
>               return -ENODEV;
>  
>       /* Make sure the system still exists */
> -     mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>       mutex_lock(&event_mutex);
> +     mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>       list_for_each_entry(tr, &ftrace_trace_arrays, list) {
>               list_for_each_entry(dir, &tr->systems, list) {
>                       if (dir == inode->i_private) {
> @@ -1421,8 +1421,8 @@ static int subsystem_open(struct inode *inode, struct 
> file *filp)
>               }
>       }
>   exit_loop:
> -     mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
>       mutex_unlock(&trace_types_lock);
> +     mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
>  
>       if (!system)
>               return -ENODEV;
> @@ -2294,15 +2294,15 @@ void trace_event_eval_update(struct trace_eval_map 
> **map, int len)
>  int trace_add_event_call(struct trace_event_call *call)
>  {
>       int ret;
> -     mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>       mutex_lock(&event_mutex);
> +     mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>  
>       ret = __register_event(call, NULL);
>       if (ret >= 0)
>               __add_event_to_tracers(call);
>  
> -     mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
>       mutex_unlock(&trace_types_lock);
> +     mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
>       return ret;
>  }
>  
> @@ -2356,13 +2356,13 @@ int trace_remove_event_call(struct trace_event_call 
> *call)
>  {
>       int ret;
>  
> -     mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>       mutex_lock(&event_mutex);
> +     mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>       down_write(&trace_event_sem);
>       ret = probe_remove_event_call(call);
>       up_write(&trace_event_sem);
> -     mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
>       mutex_unlock(&trace_types_lock);
> +     mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
>  
>       return ret;
>  }
> @@ -2424,8 +2424,8 @@ static int trace_module_notify(struct notifier_block 
> *self,
>  {
>       struct module *mod = data;
>  
> -     mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>       mutex_lock(&event_mutex);
> +     mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>       switch (val) {
>       case MODULE_STATE_COMING:
>               trace_module_add_events(mod);
> @@ -2434,8 +2434,8 @@ static int trace_module_notify(struct notifier_block 
> *self,
>               trace_module_remove_events(mod);
>               break;
>       }
> -     mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
>       mutex_unlock(&trace_types_lock);
> +     mutex_unlock(&event_mutex);
>  
>       return 0;
>  }

Reply via email to