Currently, lookup_chain_cache() provides both "lookup" and "add"
functionalities in a function. However each one is useful indivisually.
Some features, e.g. crossrelease, can use each one indivisually.
Thus, splited these functionalities into 2 functions.
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 716547f..efd001c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2010,15 +2010,9 @@ struct lock_class *lock_chain_get_class(struct lock_chain *chain, int i)
return lock_classes + chain_hlocks[chain->base + i];
}
-/*
- * Look up a dependency chain. If the key is not present yet then
- * add it and return 1 - in this case the new dependency chain is
- * validated. If the key is already hashed, return 0.
- * (On return with 1 graph_lock is held.)
- */
-static inline int lookup_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
- struct held_lock *hlock,
- u64 chain_key)
+static inline int add_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
+ struct held_lock *hlock,
+ u64 chain_key)
{
struct lock_class *class = hlock_class(hlock);
struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
@@ -2027,46 +2021,18 @@ static inline int lookup_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
int i, j;
/*
+ * Allocate a new chain entry from the static array, and add
+ * it to the hash:
+ */
+
+ /*
* We might need to take the graph lock, ensure we've got IRQs
* disabled to make this an IRQ-safe lock.. for recursion reasons
* lockdep won't complain about its own locking errors.
*/
if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
return 0;
- /*
- * We can walk it lock-free, because entries only get added
- * to the hash:
- */
- hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, hash_head, entry) {
- if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
-cache_hit:
- debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_hits);
- if (very_verbose(class))
- printk("\nhash chain already cached, key: "
- "%016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
- (unsigned long long)chain_key,
- class->key, class->name);
- return 0;
- }
- }
- if (very_verbose(class))
- printk("\nnew hash chain, key: %016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
- (unsigned long long)chain_key, class->key, class->name);
- /*
- * Allocate a new chain entry from the static array, and add
- * it to the hash:
- */
- if (!graph_lock())
- return 0;
- /*
- * We have to walk the chain again locked - to avoid duplicates:
- */
- hlist_for_each_entry(chain, hash_head, entry) {
- if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
- graph_unlock();
- goto cache_hit;
- }
- }
+
if (unlikely(nr_lock_chains >= MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS)) {
if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
return 0;
@@ -2102,6 +2068,72 @@ cache_hit:
return 1;
}
+/*
+ * Look up a dependency chain.
+ */
+static inline struct lock_chain *lookup_chain_cache(u64 chain_key)
+{
+ struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
+ struct lock_chain *chain;
+
+ /*
+ * We can walk it lock-free, because entries only get added
+ * to the hash:
+ */
+ hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(chain, hash_head, entry) {
+ if (chain->chain_key == chain_key) {
+ debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_hits);
+ return chain;
+ }
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+/*
+ * If the key is not present yet in dependency chain cache then
+ * add it and return 1 - in this case the new dependency chain is
+ * validated. If the key is already hashed, return 0.
+ * (On return with 1 graph_lock is held.)
+ */
+static inline int lookup_chain_cache_add(struct task_struct *curr,
+ struct held_lock *hlock,
+ u64 chain_key)
+{
+ struct lock_class *class = hlock_class(hlock);
+ struct lock_chain *chain = lookup_chain_cache(chain_key);
+
+ if (chain) {
+cache_hit:
+ if (very_verbose(class))
+ printk("\nhash chain already cached, key: "
+ "%016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
+ (unsigned long long)chain_key,
+ class->key, class->name);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ if (very_verbose(class))
+ printk("\nnew hash chain, key: %016Lx tail class: [%p] %s\n",
+ (unsigned long long)chain_key, class->key, class->name);
+
+ if (!graph_lock())
+ return 0;
+
+ /*
+ * We have to walk the chain again locked - to avoid duplicates:
+ */
+ chain = lookup_chain_cache(chain_key);
+ if (chain) {
+ graph_unlock();
+ goto cache_hit;
+ }
+
+ if (!add_chain_cache(curr, hlock, chain_key))
+ return 0;
+
+ return 1;
+}
+
static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
struct held_lock *hlock, int chain_head, u64 chain_key)
{
@@ -2112,11 +2144,11 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
*
* We look up the chain_key and do the O(N^2) check and update of
* the dependencies only if this is a new dependency chain.
- * (If lookup_chain_cache() returns with 1 it acquires
+ * (If lookup_chain_cache_add() return with 1 it acquires
* graph_lock for us)
*/
if (!hlock->trylock && hlock->check &&
- lookup_chain_cache(curr, hlock, chain_key)) {
+ lookup_chain_cache_add(curr, hlock, chain_key)) {
/*
* Check whether last held lock:
*
@@ -2147,9 +2179,10 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
if (!chain_head && ret != 2)
if (!check_prevs_add(curr, hlock))
return 0;
+
graph_unlock();
} else
- /* after lookup_chain_cache(): */
+ /* after lookup_chain_cache_add(): */
if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
return 0;
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>