Re: [Question] lockdep: Is nested lock handled correctly?

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Aug 10 2015 - 07:42:40 EST

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 05:52:47PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Peter and Ingo,
> I'm now learning the code of lockdep and find that nested lock may not
> be handled correctly because we fail to take held_lock merging into
> consideration. I come up with an example and hope that could explain my
> concern.
> Please consider this lock/unlock sequence, I also put a patch ading this
> sequence as a test into locking-selftest:
> (lock_X1 and lock_X2 belong to the same lock class X, lock_Y1 belongs to
> another lock class Y)
> spin_lock(&lock_X1);
> spin_lock(&lock_Y1);
> spin_lock_nested_lock(&lock_X2, &lock_X1);
> spin_unlock(&lock_Y1);
> spin_unlock(&lock_X2);
> spin_unlock(&lock_X1);
> This is totally legal in current lockdep rules, right?

Yuck, I'd say no. That's quite horrible.

Why would you ever want to do that?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at