From: Yuyang Du Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 08:19:32 +0000 (+0800) Subject: locking/lockdep: Add explanation to lock usage rules in lockdep design doc X-Git-Url: http://git.lede-project.org./?a=commitdiff_plain;h=1ac4ba5ed0114bcc146d5743d97df414af25c524;p=openwrt%2Fstaging%2Fblogic.git locking/lockdep: Add explanation to lock usage rules in lockdep design doc The irq usage and lock dependency rules that if violated a deacklock may happen are explained in more detail. Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: bvanassche@acm.org Cc: frederic@kernel.org Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com Cc: will.deacon@arm.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190506081939.74287-17-duyuyang@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt index ae65758383ea..f189d130e543 100644 --- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt +++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt @@ -108,14 +108,24 @@ Unused locks (e.g., mutexes) cannot be part of the cause of an error. Single-lock state rules: ------------------------ +A lock is irq-safe means it was ever used in an irq context, while a lock +is irq-unsafe means it was ever acquired with irq enabled. + A softirq-unsafe lock-class is automatically hardirq-unsafe as well. The -following states are exclusive, and only one of them is allowed to be -set for any lock-class: +following states must be exclusive: only one of them is allowed to be set +for any lock-class based on its usage: + + or + or - and - and +This is because if a lock can be used in irq context (irq-safe) then it +cannot be ever acquired with irq enabled (irq-unsafe). Otherwise, a +deadlock may happen. For example, in the scenario that after this lock +was acquired but before released, if the context is interrupted this +lock will be attempted to acquire twice, which creates a deadlock, +referred to as lock recursion deadlock. -The validator detects and reports lock usage that violate these +The validator detects and reports lock usage that violates these single-lock state rules. Multi-lock dependency rules: @@ -124,15 +134,18 @@ Multi-lock dependency rules: The same lock-class must not be acquired twice, because this could lead to lock recursion deadlocks. -Furthermore, two locks may not be taken in different order: +Furthermore, two locks can not be taken in inverse order: -> -> -because this could lead to lock inversion deadlocks. (The validator -finds such dependencies in arbitrary complexity, i.e. there can be any -other locking sequence between the acquire-lock operations, the -validator will still track all dependencies between locks.) +because this could lead to a deadlock - referred to as lock inversion +deadlock - as attempts to acquire the two locks form a circle which +could lead to the two contexts waiting for each other permanently. The +validator will find such dependency circle in arbitrary complexity, +i.e., there can be any other locking sequence between the acquire-lock +operations; the validator will still find whether these locks can be +acquired in a circular fashion. Furthermore, the following usage based lock dependencies are not allowed between any two lock-classes: