On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 04:10:46PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:32:51PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 15:42 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Currently, in safe->unsafe detection, lockdep misses the fact that a
> > > LOCK_ENABLED_IRQ_*_READ usage and a LOCK_USED_IN_IRQ_*_READ usage may
> > > cause deadlock too, for example:
> > >
> > > P1 P2
> > > <irq disabled>
> > > write_lock(l1); <irq enabled>
> > > read_lock(l2);
> > > write_lock(l2);
> > > <in irq>
> > > read_lock(l1);
> > >
> > > Actually, all of the following cases may cause deadlocks:
> > >
> > > LOCK_USED_IN_IRQ_* -> LOCK_ENABLED_IRQ_*
> > > LOCK_USED_IN_IRQ_*_READ -> LOCK_ENABLED_IRQ_*
> > > LOCK_USED_IN_IRQ_* -> LOCK_ENABLED_IRQ_*_READ
> > > LOCK_USED_IN_IRQ_*_READ -> LOCK_ENABLED_IRQ_*_READ
> > >
> > > To fix this, we need to 1) change the calculation of exclusive_mask() so
> > > that READ bits are not dropped and 2) always call usage() in
> > > mark_lock_irq() to check usage deadlocks, even when the new usage of the
> > > lock is READ.
> > >
> > > Besides, adjust usage_match() and usage_acculumate() to recursive read
> > > lock changes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com>
> >
> > So our daily CI starts to trigger a warning (graph corruption?) below. From
> > the
> > call traces, this recent patchset changed a few related things here and
> > there.
> > Does it ring any bells?
> >
> > [14828.805563][T145183] lockdep bfs error:-1
>
> -1 is BFS_EQUEUEFULL, that means we hit the size limitation in lockdep
> searching, which is possible since recursive read deadlock detection
> tries to make the all edges (dependencies) searched. So maybe we should
> switch to DFS instead of BFS, I will look into this, in the meanwhile,
> could you try the following to see if it can help on the warnings you
> got?
>
Found a way to resolve this while still keeping the BFS. Every time when
we want to enqueue a lock_list, we basically enqueue a whole dep list of
entries from the previous lock_list, so we can use a trick here: instead
enqueue all the entries, we only enqueue the first entry and we can
fetch other silbing entries with list_next_or_null_rcu(). Patch as
below, I also took the chance to clear the code up and add more
comments. I could see this number (in /proc/lockdep_stats):
max bfs queue depth: 201
down to (after apply this patch)
max bfs queue depth: 61
with x86_64_defconfig along with lockdep and selftest configs.
Qian, could you give it a try?
Regards,
Boqun
---------------------->8
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 454355c033d2..1cc1302bf319 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1640,35 +1640,22 @@ static enum bfs_result __bfs(struct lock_list
*source_entry,
int offset)
{
struct lock_list *entry;
- struct lock_list *lock;
+ struct lock_list *lock = NULL;
struct list_head *head;
struct circular_queue *cq = &lock_cq;
- enum bfs_result ret = BFS_RNOMATCH;
lockdep_assert_locked();
- if (match(source_entry, data)) {
- *target_entry = source_entry;
- ret = BFS_RMATCH;
- goto exit;
- }
-
- head = get_dep_list(source_entry, offset);
- if (list_empty(head))
- goto exit;
-
__cq_init(cq);
__cq_enqueue(cq, source_entry);
- while ((lock = __cq_dequeue(cq))) {
- bool prev_only_xr;
-
- if (!lock->class) {
- ret = BFS_EINVALIDNODE;
- goto exit;
- }
+ while (lock || (lock = __cq_dequeue(cq))) {
+ if (!lock->class)
+ return BFS_EINVALIDNODE;
/*
+ * Step 1: check whether we already finish on this one.
+ *
* If we have visited all the dependencies from this @lock to
* others (iow, if we have visited all lock_list entries in
* @lock->class->locks_{after,before}) we skip, otherwise go
@@ -1676,17 +1663,17 @@ static enum bfs_result __bfs(struct lock_list
*source_entry,
* list accessed.
*/
if (lock_accessed(lock))
- continue;
+ goto next;
else
mark_lock_accessed(lock);
- head = get_dep_list(lock, offset);
-
- prev_only_xr = lock->only_xr;
-
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, head, entry) {
- unsigned int cq_depth;
- u8 dep = entry->dep;
+ /*
+ * Step 2: check whether prev dependency and this form a strong
+ * dependency path.
+ */
+ if (lock->parent) { /* Parent exists, check prev dependency */
+ u8 dep = lock->dep;
+ bool prev_only_xr = lock->parent->only_xr;
/*
* Mask out all -(S*)-> if we only have *R in previous
@@ -1698,29 +1685,68 @@ static enum bfs_result __bfs(struct lock_list
*source_entry,
/* If nothing left, we skip */
if (!dep)
- continue;
+ goto next;
/* If there are only -(*R)-> left, set that for the
next step */
- entry->only_xr = !(dep & (DEP_SN_MASK | DEP_EN_MASK));
+ lock->only_xr = !(dep & (DEP_SN_MASK | DEP_EN_MASK));
+ }
- visit_lock_entry(entry, lock);
- if (match(entry, data)) {
- *target_entry = entry;
- ret = BFS_RMATCH;
- goto exit;
- }
+ /*
+ * Step 3: we haven't visited this and there is a strong
+ * dependency path to this, so check with @match.
+ */
+ if (match(lock, data)) {
+ *target_entry = lock;
+ return BFS_RMATCH;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Step 4: if not match, expand the path by adding the
+ * afterwards or backwards dependencis in the search
+ *
+ * Note we only enqueue the first of the list into the queue,
+ * because we can always find a sibling dependency from one
+ * (see label 'next'), as a result the space of queue is saved.
+ */
+ head = get_dep_list(lock, offset);
+ entry = list_first_or_null_rcu(head, struct lock_list, entry);
+ if (entry) {
+ unsigned int cq_depth;
+
+ if (__cq_enqueue(cq, entry))
+ return BFS_EQUEUEFULL;
- if (__cq_enqueue(cq, entry)) {
- ret = BFS_EQUEUEFULL;
- goto exit;
- }
cq_depth = __cq_get_elem_count(cq);
if (max_bfs_queue_depth < cq_depth)
max_bfs_queue_depth = cq_depth;
}
+
+ /*
+ * Update the ->parent, so when @entry is iterated, we know the
+ * previous dependency.
+ */
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, head, entry)
+ visit_lock_entry(entry, lock);
+next:
+ /*
+ * Step 5: fetch the next dependency to process.
+ *
+ * If there is a previous dependency, we fetch the sibling
+ * dependency in the dep list of previous dependency.
+ *
+ * Otherwise set @lock to NULL to fetch the next entry from
+ * queue.
+ */
+ if (lock->parent) {
+ head = get_dep_list(lock->parent, offset);
+ lock = list_next_or_null_rcu(head, &lock->entry,
+ struct lock_list, entry);
+ } else {
+ lock = NULL;
+ }
}
-exit:
- return ret;
+
+ return BFS_RNOMATCH;
}
static inline enum bfs_result
