[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectLockdep question regarding two-level locks

I am wondering about how to describe the following situation to lockdep:

- lock A would be something that's already implemented (a mutex or
possibly a spinlock).
- lock B is a range lock, which I would be writing the code for
(including lockdep hooks). I do not expect lockdep to know about range
locking, but I want it to treat lock B like any other and detect lock
ordering issues related to it.
- lock A protects a number of structures, including lock B's list of
locked ranges, but other structures as well.
- lock A is intended to be held for only short periods of time, lock
B's ranges might be held for longer.

Usage would be along the following lines:

// might access data protected by A here
bool blocked = B_lock(range); // must be called under lock A; will
release lock A if blocking on B.
// might access data protected by A here (especially to re-validate in
case A was released while blocking on B...)

// might access data protected by A here
A_B_unlock(range); // must be called under lock A; releases locks A and B.

There might also be other places that need to lock A for a short time,
either inside and outside of lock B.

The correct lock ordering here is that lock A can be acquired while
holding lock B. However, the acquire sequence here seems to violate
that, as A must be locked before B there. In reality, the usage
pattern does not create circular dependencies, because lock A would be
released if blocking on lock B. However, I am not sure how to convey
that usage pattern to lockdep.

A few options I am considering:

- Is there a way to indicate to lockdep, in B's locking function
definition, that I am acquiring B after A but really want the lock
order to be registered as A after B, since I know how to avoid the
circular dependency issue by releasing A if blocking on B ?

- B's locking function definition could tell lockdep that B was
acquired with a trylock. This avoids lockdep reporting a lock ordering
issue between A and B, but also will make lockdep ignore lock ordering
issues between any other lock and B. So this is not a proper solution,
as we may just as well not implement lockdep support in lock B in that

- B's implementation could, when lockdep is enabled, always release
lock A before acquiring lock B. This is not ideal though, since this
would hinder testing of the not-blocked code path in the acquire

Would the lockdep maintainers have any guidance as to how to handle
this locking case ?


Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-22 18:05    [W:0.032 / U:5.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site