On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:17:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> +struct cross_lock {
> + /*
> + * When more than one acquisition of crosslocks are overlapped,
> + * we do actual commit only when ref == 0.
> + */
> + atomic_t ref;
That comment doesn't seem right, should that be: ref != 0 ?
Also; would it not be much clearer to call this: nr_blocked, or waiters
or something along those lines, because that is what it appears to be.
> + /*
> + * Seperate hlock instance. This will be used at commit step.
> + *
> + * TODO: Use a smaller data structure containing only necessary
> + * data. However, we should make lockdep code able to handle the
> + * smaller one first.
> + */
> + struct held_lock hlock;
> +};
> +static int add_xlock(struct held_lock *hlock)
> +{
> + struct cross_lock *xlock;
> + unsigned int gen_id;
> +
> + if (!depend_after(hlock))
> + return 1;
> +
> + if (!graph_lock())
> + return 0;
> +
> + xlock = &((struct lockdep_map_cross *)hlock->instance)->xlock;
> +
> + /*
> + * When acquisitions for a xlock are overlapped, we use
> + * a reference counter to handle it.
Handle what!? That comment is near empty.
> + */
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&xlock->ref) > 1)
> + goto unlock;
So you set the xlock's generation only once, to the oldest blocking-on
relation, which makes sense, you want to be able to related to all
historical locks since.
> +
> + gen_id = (unsigned int)atomic_inc_return(&cross_gen_id);
> + xlock->hlock = *hlock;
> + xlock->hlock.gen_id = gen_id;
> +unlock:
> + graph_unlock();
> + return 1;
> +}
> +void lock_commit_crosslock(struct lockdep_map *lock)
> +{
> + struct cross_lock *xlock;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + if (!current->xhlocks)
> + return;
> +
> + if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion))
> + return;
> +
> + raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> + check_flags(flags);
> + current->lockdep_recursion = 1;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
> + return;
> +
> + if (!graph_lock())
> + return;
> +
> + xlock = &((struct lockdep_map_cross *)lock)->xlock;
> + if (atomic_read(&xlock->ref) > 0 && !commit_xhlocks(xlock))
You terminate with graph_lock() held.
Also, I think you can do the atomic_read() outside of graph lock, to
avoid taking graph_lock when its 0.
> + return;
> +
> + graph_unlock();
> + current->lockdep_recursion = 0;
> + raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lock_commit_crosslock);
> +
> +/*
> + * return 0: Need to do normal release operation.
> + * return 1: Done. No more release ops is needed.
> + */
> +static int lock_release_crosslock(struct lockdep_map *lock)
> +{
> + if (cross_lock(lock)) {
> + atomic_dec(&((struct lockdep_map_cross *)lock)->xlock.ref);
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void cross_init(struct lockdep_map *lock, int cross)
> +{
> + if (cross)
> + atomic_set(&((struct lockdep_map_cross *)lock)->xlock.ref, 0);
> +
> + lock->cross = cross;
> +}
--
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>
