Donate to e Foundation | Murena handsets with /e/OS | Own a part of Murena! Learn more

Commit e6f3faa7 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar
Browse files

locking/lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation



The new completion/crossrelease annotations interact unfavourable with
the extant flush_work()/flush_workqueue() annotations.

The problem is that when a single work class does:

  wait_for_completion(&C)

and

  complete(&C)

in different executions, we'll build dependencies like:

  lock_map_acquire(W)
  complete_acquire(C)

and

  lock_map_acquire(W)
  complete_release(C)

which results in the dependency chain: W->C->W, which lockdep thinks
spells deadlock, even though there is no deadlock potential since
works are ran concurrently.

One possibility would be to change the work 'lock' to recursive-read,
but that would mean hitting a lockdep limitation on recursive locks.
Also, unconditinoally switching to recursive-read here would fail to
detect the actual deadlock on single-threaded workqueues, which do
have a problem with this.

For now, forcefully disregard these locks for crossrelease.

Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: default avatarTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: byungchul.park@lge.com
Cc: david@fromorbit.com
Cc: johannes@sipsolutions.net
Cc: oleg@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent a1d14934
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
+2 −2
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
# define trace_hardirq_enter()			\
do {						\
	current->hardirq_context++;		\
	crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_HARD);	\
	crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_HARD, 0);\
} while (0)
# define trace_hardirq_exit()			\
do {						\
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ do { \
# define lockdep_softirq_enter()		\
do {						\
	current->softirq_context++;		\
	crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_SOFT);	\
	crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_SOFT, 0);\
} while (0)
# define lockdep_softirq_exit()			\
do {						\
+6 −4
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ extern int lock_stat;

#define MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES		8UL

#include <linux/types.h>

#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP

#include <linux/linkage.h>
@@ -578,11 +580,11 @@ extern void lock_commit_crosslock(struct lockdep_map *lock);
#define STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT(_name, _key) \
	{ .name = (_name), .key = (void *)(_key), .cross = 0, }

extern void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c);
extern void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c, bool force);
extern void crossrelease_hist_end(enum xhlock_context_t c);
extern void lockdep_init_task(struct task_struct *task);
extern void lockdep_free_task(struct task_struct *task);
#else
#else /* !CROSSRELEASE */
#define lockdep_init_map_crosslock(m, n, k, s) do {} while (0)
/*
 * To initialize a lockdep_map statically use this macro.
@@ -591,11 +593,11 @@ extern void lockdep_free_task(struct task_struct *task);
#define STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT(_name, _key) \
	{ .name = (_name), .key = (void *)(_key), }

static inline void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c) {}
static inline void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c, bool force) {}
static inline void crossrelease_hist_end(enum xhlock_context_t c) {}
static inline void lockdep_init_task(struct task_struct *task) {}
static inline void lockdep_free_task(struct task_struct *task) {}
#endif
#endif /* CROSSRELEASE */

#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_STAT

+36 −20
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -4629,7 +4629,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void lockdep_sys_exit(void)
	 * the index to point to the last entry, which is already invalid.
	 */
	crossrelease_hist_end(XHLOCK_PROC);
	crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC);
	crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC, false);
}

void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s)
@@ -4725,25 +4725,25 @@ static inline void invalidate_xhlock(struct hist_lock *xhlock)
/*
 * Lock history stacks; we have 3 nested lock history stacks:
 *
 *   Hard IRQ
 *   Soft IRQ
 *   History / Task
 *   HARD(IRQ)
 *   SOFT(IRQ)
 *   PROC(ess)
 *
 * The thing is that once we complete a (Hard/Soft) IRQ the future task locks
 * should not depend on any of the locks observed while running the IRQ.
 * The thing is that once we complete a HARD/SOFT IRQ the future task locks
 * should not depend on any of the locks observed while running the IRQ.  So
 * what we do is rewind the history buffer and erase all our knowledge of that
 * temporal event.
 *
 * So what we do is rewind the history buffer and erase all our knowledge of
 * that temporal event.
 */

/*
 * We need this to annotate lock history boundaries. Take for instance
 * workqueues; each work is independent of the last. The completion of a future
 * work does not depend on the completion of a past work (in general).
 * Therefore we must not carry that (lock) dependency across works.
 * The PROCess one is special though; it is used to annotate independence
 * inside a task.
 *
 * Take for instance workqueues; each work is independent of the last. The
 * completion of a future work does not depend on the completion of a past work
 * (in general). Therefore we must not carry that (lock) dependency across
 * works.
 *
 * This is true for many things; pretty much all kthreads fall into this
 * pattern, where they have an 'idle' state and future completions do not
 * pattern, where they have an invariant state and future completions do not
 * depend on past completions. Its just that since they all have the 'same'
 * form -- the kthread does the same over and over -- it doesn't typically
 * matter.
@@ -4751,16 +4751,32 @@ static inline void invalidate_xhlock(struct hist_lock *xhlock)
 * The same is true for system-calls, once a system call is completed (we've
 * returned to userspace) the next system call does not depend on the lock
 * history of the previous system call.
 *
 * They key property for independence, this invariant state, is that it must be
 * a point where we hold no locks and have no history. Because if we were to
 * hold locks, the restore at _end() would not necessarily recover it's history
 * entry. Similarly, independence per-definition means it does not depend on
 * prior state.
 */
void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c)
void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c, bool force)
{
	struct task_struct *cur = current;

	if (cur->xhlocks) {
	if (!cur->xhlocks)
		return;

	/*
	 * We call this at an invariant point, no current state, no history.
	 */
	if (c == XHLOCK_PROC) {
		/* verified the former, ensure the latter */
		WARN_ON_ONCE(!force && cur->lockdep_depth);
		invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(cur->xhlock_idx));
	}

	cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c] = cur->xhlock_idx;
	cur->hist_id_save[c]    = cur->hist_id;
}
}

void crossrelease_hist_end(enum xhlock_context_t c)
{
+22 −1
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -2093,7 +2093,28 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock)

	lock_map_acquire(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
	lock_map_acquire(&lockdep_map);
	crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC);
	/*
	 * Strictly speaking we should do start(PROC) without holding any
	 * locks, that is, before these two lock_map_acquire()'s.
	 *
	 * However, that would result in:
	 *
	 *   A(W1)
	 *   WFC(C)
	 *		A(W1)
	 *		C(C)
	 *
	 * Which would create W1->C->W1 dependencies, even though there is no
	 * actual deadlock possible. There are two solutions, using a
	 * read-recursive acquire on the work(queue) 'locks', but this will then
	 * hit the lockdep limitation on recursive locks, or simly discard
	 * these locks.
	 *
	 * AFAICT there is no possible deadlock scenario between the
	 * flush_work() and complete() primitives (except for single-threaded
	 * workqueues), so hiding them isn't a problem.
	 */
	crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC, true);
	trace_workqueue_execute_start(work);
	worker->current_func(work);
	/*