mirror of https://gitee.com/openkylin/linux.git
locking/lockdep: Update comments on dependency search
The breadth-first search is implemented as flat-out non-recursive now, but the comments are still describing it as recursive, update the comments in that regard. Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: bvanassche@acm.org Cc: frederic@kernel.org Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com Cc: will.deacon@arm.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190506081939.74287-16-duyuyang@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
77a806922c
commit
154f185e9c
|
@ -1381,6 +1381,10 @@ static inline struct list_head *get_dep_list(struct lock_list *lock, int offset)
|
|||
return lock_class + offset;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Forward- or backward-dependency search, used for both circular dependency
|
||||
* checking and hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe checking.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static int __bfs(struct lock_list *source_entry,
|
||||
void *data,
|
||||
int (*match)(struct lock_list *entry, void *data),
|
||||
|
@ -1461,12 +1465,6 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list *src_entry,
|
|||
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Recursive, forwards-direction lock-dependency checking, used for
|
||||
* both noncyclic checking and for hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe
|
||||
* checking.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
static void print_lock_trace(struct lock_trace *trace, unsigned int spaces)
|
||||
{
|
||||
unsigned long *entries = stack_trace + trace->offset;
|
||||
|
@ -2285,7 +2283,7 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next, int read)
|
|||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* There was a chain-cache miss, and we are about to add a new dependency
|
||||
* to a previous lock. We recursively validate the following rules:
|
||||
* to a previous lock. We validate the following rules:
|
||||
*
|
||||
* - would the adding of the <prev> -> <next> dependency create a
|
||||
* circular dependency in the graph? [== circular deadlock]
|
||||
|
@ -2335,11 +2333,12 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
|
|||
/*
|
||||
* Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
|
||||
* create a circular dependency in the graph. (We do this by
|
||||
* forward-recursing into the graph starting at <next>, and
|
||||
* checking whether we can reach <prev>.)
|
||||
* a breadth-first search into the graph starting at <next>,
|
||||
* and check whether we can reach <prev>.)
|
||||
*
|
||||
* We are using global variables to control the recursion, to
|
||||
* keep the stackframe size of the recursive functions low:
|
||||
* The search is limited by the size of the circular queue (i.e.,
|
||||
* MAX_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_SIZE) which keeps track of a breadth of nodes
|
||||
* in the graph whose neighbours are to be checked.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
this.class = hlock_class(next);
|
||||
this.parent = NULL;
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue