On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:51:33PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > void crossrelease_hist_end(enum context_t c)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (current->xhlocks)
> > > > - current->xhlock_idx = current->xhlock_idx_hist[c];
> > > > + struct task_struct *cur = current;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (cur->xhlocks) {
> > > > + unsigned int idx = cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c];
> > > > + struct hist_lock *h = &xhlock(idx);
> > > > +
> > > > + cur->xhlock_idx = idx;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Check if the ring was overwritten. */
> > > > + if (h->hist_id != cur->hist_id_save[c])
> > >
> > > Could we use:
> > >
> > > if (h->hist_id != idx)
> >
> > No, we cannot.
> >
>
> Hey, I'm not buying it. task_struct::hist_id and task_struct::xhlock_idx
> are increased at the same place(in add_xhlock()), right?
Right.
> And, yes, xhlock_idx will get decreased when we do ring-buffer
This is why we should keep both of them.
> unwinding, but that's OK, because we need to throw away those recently
> added items.
>
> And xhlock_idx always points to the most recently added valid item,
No, it's not true in case that the ring buffer was wrapped like:
ppppppppppppppppppppppppiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
wrapped > iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii................
^
xhlock_idx points here after unwinding,
and it's not a valid one.
where p represents an acquisition in process context,
i represents an acquisition in irq context.
> right? Any other item's idx must "before()" the most recently added
> one's, right? So ::xhlock_idx acts just like a timestamp, doesn't it?
Both of two answers are _no_.
> Maybe I'm missing something subtle, but could you show me an example,
> that could end up being a problem if we use xhlock_idx as the hist_id?
See the example above. We cannot detect whether it was wrapped or not using
xhlock_idx.
>
> > hist_id is a kind of timestamp and used to detect overwriting
> > data into places of same indexes of the ring buffer. And idx is
> > just an index. :) IOW, they mean different things.
> >
> > >
> > > here, and
> > >
> > > > + invalidate_xhlock(h);
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static int cross_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock)
> > > > @@ -4826,6 +4851,7 @@ static inline int depend_after(struct held_lock
> > > *hlock)
> > > > * Check if the xhlock is valid, which would be false if,
> > > > *
> > > > * 1. Has not used after initializaion yet.
> > > > + * 2. Got invalidated.
> > > > *
> > > > * Remind hist_lock is implemented as a ring buffer.
> > > > */
> > > > @@ -4857,6 +4883,7 @@ static void add_xhlock(struct held_lock *hlock)
> > > >
> > > > /* Initialize hist_lock's members */
> > > > xhlock->hlock = *hlock;
> > > > + xhlock->hist_id = current->hist_id++;
>
> Besides, is this code correct? Does this just make xhlock->hist_id
> one-less-than the curr->hist_id, which cause the invalidation every time
> you do ring buffer unwinding?
Right. "save = hist_id++" should be "save = ++hist_id". Could you fix it?
Thank you,
Byungchul
--
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>
