Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockdep: Print a nice description of an irqlocking issue

From: Yong Zhang
Date: Thu Apr 21 2011 - 09:35:55 EST


On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 07:40:29AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 15:02 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > ---
> > >
> > > The above is the case when the unsafe lock is taken while holding
> > > a lock taken in irq context. But when a lock is taken that also
> > > grabs a unsafe lock, the call chain is shown:
> > >
> > > ---
> > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > >
> > > Chain exists of:
> > > &rq->lock --> lockA --> lockC
> > >
> > > Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> > >
> > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > ---- ----
> > > lock(lockC);
> > > local_irq_disable();
> > > lock(&rq->lock);
> > > lock(lockA);
> > > <Interrupt>
> > > lock(&rq->lock);
> > >
> > > *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > Or we could show this:
> > Chain exists of:
> > &rq->lock --> lockA --> lockC
> >
> > Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> > ---- ---- ----
> > lock(lockC);
> > local_irq_disable();
> > lock(&rq->lock); lock(lockA);
> > lock(lockA); lock(lockC);
> > <Interrupt>
> > lock(&rq->lock);
> >
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
>
>
> We could but I prefer not to ;) We have some chains that are 8 locks
> deep. I really don't want to scatter that entirely across the screen.
> Hence my "Chain exists.." statement, following an example that any
> kernel developer can (with a little thinking) see is a possible
> deadlock.

Yup :)

>
> In fact, this code doesn't even look at the full chain, it only examines
> 3 locks in the chain, and lets the developer figure out the rest.

OK, fair enough.

> I
> could show the entire chain too.

Sure :)

Thanks,
Yong
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/