[tip:locking/core] locking/lockdep: Handle non(or multi)-acquisition of a crosslock

[tip-bot for Byungchul Park]

Commit-ID:  28a903f63ec0811ead70ad0f8665e838d207a25e
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/28a903f63ec0811ead70ad0f8665e838d207a25e
Author:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
AuthorDate: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:12:54 +0900
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
CommitDate: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:29:08 +0200

locking/lockdep: Handle non(or multi)-acquisition of a crosslock

No acquisition might be in progress on commit of a crosslock. Completion
operations enabling crossrelease are the case like:

   CONTEXT X                         CONTEXT Y
   ---------                         ---------
   trigger completion context
                                     complete AX
                                        commit AX
   wait_for_complete AX
      acquire AX
      wait

   where AX is a crosslock.

When no acquisition is in progress, we should not perform commit because
the lock does not exist, which might cause incorrect memory access. So
we have to track the number of acquisitions of a crosslock to handle it.

Moreover, in case that more than one acquisition of a crosslock are
overlapped like:

   CONTEXT W        CONTEXT X        CONTEXT Y        CONTEXT Z
   ---------        ---------        ---------        ---------
   acquire AX (gen_id: 1)
                                     acquire A
                    acquire AX (gen_id: 10)
                                     acquire B
                                     commit AX
                                                      acquire C
                                                      commit AX

   where A, B and C are typical locks and AX is a crosslock.

Current crossrelease code performs commits in Y and Z with gen_id = 10.
However, we can use gen_id = 1 to do it, since not only 'acquire AX in X'
but 'acquire AX in W' also depends on each acquisition in Y and Z until
their commits. So make it use gen_id = 1 instead of 10 on their commits,
which adds an additional dependency 'AX -> A' in the example above.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: kernel-team@xxxxxxx
Cc: kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: npiggin@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: walken@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1502089981-21272-8-git-send-email-byungchul.park@xxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 include/linux/lockdep.h  | 22 ++++++++++++-
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
index c75eedd..651cc61 100644
--- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -325,6 +325,19 @@ struct hist_lock {
  */
 struct cross_lock {
 	/*
+	 * When more than one acquisition of crosslocks are overlapped,
+	 * we have to perform commit for them based on cross_gen_id of
+	 * the first acquisition, which allows us to add more true
+	 * dependencies.
+	 *
+	 * Moreover, when no acquisition of a crosslock is in progress,
+	 * we should not perform commit because the lock might not exist
+	 * any more, which might cause incorrect memory access. So we
+	 * have to track the number of acquisitions of a crosslock.
+	 */
+	int nr_acquire;
+
+	/*
 	 * Seperate hlock instance. This will be used at commit step.
 	 *
 	 * TODO: Use a smaller data structure containing only necessary
@@ -547,9 +560,16 @@ extern void lockdep_init_map_crosslock(struct lockdep_map *lock,
 				       int subclass);
 extern void lock_commit_crosslock(struct lockdep_map *lock);
 
+/*
+ * What we essencially have to initialize is 'nr_acquire'. Other members
+ * will be initialized in add_xlock().
+ */
+#define STATIC_CROSS_LOCK_INIT() \
+	{ .nr_acquire = 0,}
+
 #define STATIC_CROSS_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT(_name, _key) \
 	{ .map.name = (_name), .map.key = (void *)(_key), \
-	  .map.cross = 1, }
+	  .map.cross = 1, .xlock = STATIC_CROSS_LOCK_INIT(), }
 
 /*
  * To initialize a lockdep_map statically use this macro.
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index eda8114..7f97871 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -4867,11 +4867,28 @@ static int add_xlock(struct held_lock *hlock)
 
 	xlock = &((struct lockdep_map_cross *)hlock->instance)->xlock;
 
+	/*
+	 * When acquisitions for a crosslock are overlapped, we use
+	 * nr_acquire to perform commit for them, based on cross_gen_id
+	 * of the first acquisition, which allows to add additional
+	 * dependencies.
+	 *
+	 * Moreover, when no acquisition of a crosslock is in progress,
+	 * we should not perform commit because the lock might not exist
+	 * any more, which might cause incorrect memory access. So we
+	 * have to track the number of acquisitions of a crosslock.
+	 *
+	 * depend_after() is necessary to initialize only the first
+	 * valid xlock so that the xlock can be used on its commit.
+	 */
+	if (xlock->nr_acquire++ && depend_after(&xlock->hlock))
+		goto unlock;
+
 	gen_id = (unsigned int)atomic_inc_return(&cross_gen_id);
 	xlock->hlock = *hlock;
 	xlock->hlock.gen_id = gen_id;
+unlock:
 	graph_unlock();
-
 	return 1;
 }
 
@@ -4967,35 +4984,37 @@ static void commit_xhlocks(struct cross_lock *xlock)
 	if (!graph_lock())
 		return;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < MAX_XHLOCKS_NR; i++) {
-		struct hist_lock *xhlock = &xhlock(cur - i);
+	if (xlock->nr_acquire) {
+		for (i = 0; i < MAX_XHLOCKS_NR; i++) {
+			struct hist_lock *xhlock = &xhlock(cur - i);
 
-		if (!xhlock_valid(xhlock))
-			break;
+			if (!xhlock_valid(xhlock))
+				break;
 
-		if (before(xhlock->hlock.gen_id, xlock->hlock.gen_id))
-			break;
+			if (before(xhlock->hlock.gen_id, xlock->hlock.gen_id))
+				break;
 
-		if (!same_context_xhlock(xhlock))
-			break;
+			if (!same_context_xhlock(xhlock))
+				break;
 
-		/*
-		 * Filter out the cases that the ring buffer was
-		 * overwritten and the previous entry has a bigger
-		 * hist_id than the following one, which is impossible
-		 * otherwise.
-		 */
-		if (unlikely(before(xhlock->hist_id, prev_hist_id)))
-			break;
+			/*
+			 * Filter out the cases that the ring buffer was
+			 * overwritten and the previous entry has a bigger
+			 * hist_id than the following one, which is impossible
+			 * otherwise.
+			 */
+			if (unlikely(before(xhlock->hist_id, prev_hist_id)))
+				break;
 
-		prev_hist_id = xhlock->hist_id;
+			prev_hist_id = xhlock->hist_id;
 
-		/*
-		 * commit_xhlock() returns 0 with graph_lock already
-		 * released if fail.
-		 */
-		if (!commit_xhlock(xlock, xhlock))
-			return;
+			/*
+			 * commit_xhlock() returns 0 with graph_lock already
+			 * released if fail.
+			 */
+			if (!commit_xhlock(xlock, xhlock))
+				return;
+		}
 	}
 
 	graph_unlock();
@@ -5039,16 +5058,27 @@ void lock_commit_crosslock(struct lockdep_map *lock)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lock_commit_crosslock);
 
 /*
- * Return: 1 - crosslock, done;
+ * Return: 0 - failure;
+ *         1 - crosslock, done;
  *         2 - normal lock, continue to held_lock[] ops.
  */
 static int lock_release_crosslock(struct lockdep_map *lock)
 {
-	return cross_lock(lock) ? 1 : 2;
+	if (cross_lock(lock)) {
+		if (!graph_lock())
+			return 0;
+		((struct lockdep_map_cross *)lock)->xlock.nr_acquire--;
+		graph_unlock();
+		return 1;
+	}
+	return 2;
 }
 
 static void cross_init(struct lockdep_map *lock, int cross)
 {
+	if (cross)
+		((struct lockdep_map_cross *)lock)->xlock.nr_acquire = 0;
+
 	lock->cross = cross;
 
 	/*