Pull x86 LTO changes from Peter Anvin:
"More infrastructure work in preparation for link-time optimization
(LTO). Most of these changes is to make sure symbols accessed from
assembly code are properly marked as visible so the linker doesn't
remove them.
My understanding is that the changes to support LTO are still not
upstream in binutils, but are on the way there. This patchset should
conclude the x86-specific changes, and remaining patches to actually
enable LTO will be fed through the Kbuild tree (other than keeping up
with changes to the x86 code base, of course), although not
necessarily in this merge window"
* 'x86-asmlinkage-for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: (25 commits)
Kbuild, lto: Handle basic LTO in modpost
Kbuild, lto: Disable LTO for asm-offsets.c
Kbuild, lto: Add a gcc-ld script to let run gcc as ld
Kbuild, lto: add ld-version and ld-ifversion macros
Kbuild, lto: Drop .number postfixes in modpost
Kbuild, lto, workaround: Don't warn for initcall_reference in modpost
lto: Disable LTO for sys_ni
lto: Handle LTO common symbols in module loader
lto, workaround: Add workaround for initcall reordering
lto: Make asmlinkage __visible
x86, lto: Disable LTO for the x86 VDSO
initconst, x86: Fix initconst mistake in ts5500 code
initconst: Fix initconst mistake in dcdbas
asmlinkage: Make trace_hardirqs_on/off_caller visible
asmlinkage, x86: Fix 32bit memcpy for LTO
asmlinkage Make __stack_chk_failed and memcmp visible
asmlinkage: Mark rwsem functions that can be called from assembler asmlinkage
asmlinkage: Make main_extable_sort_needed visible
asmlinkage, mutex: Mark __visible
asmlinkage: Make trace_hardirq visible
...
lockdep_sys_exit can be called from assembler code, so make it
asmlinkage.
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1391845930-28580-5-git-send-email-ak@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
The __lockdep_no_validate check in mark_held_locks() adds the subtle
and (afaics) unnecessary difference between no-validate and check==0.
And this looks even more inconsistent because __lock_acquire() skips
mark_irqflags()->mark_lock() if !check.
Change mark_held_locks() to check hlock->check instead.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140120182013.GA26505@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Test-case:
DEFINE_MUTEX(m1);
DEFINE_MUTEX(m2);
DEFINE_MUTEX(mx);
void lockdep_should_complain(void)
{
lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx);
// m1 -> mx -> m2
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_lock(&mx);
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&mx);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
// m2 -> m1 ; should trigger the warning
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
}
this doesn't trigger any warning, lockdep can't detect the trivial
deadlock.
This is because lock(&mx) correctly avoids m1 -> mx dependency, it
skips validate_chain() due to mx->check == 0. But lock(&m2) wrongly
adds mx -> m2 and thus m1 -> m2 is not created.
rcu_lock_acquire()->lock_acquire(check => 0) is fine due to read == 2,
so currently only __lockdep_no_validate__ can trigger this problem.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140120182010.GA26498@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
The "int check" argument of lock_acquire() and held_lock->check are
misleading. This is actually a boolean: 2 means "true", everything
else is "false".
And there is no need to pass 1 or 0 to lock_acquire() depending on
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, __lock_acquire() checks prove_locking at the
start and clears "check" if !CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING.
Note: probably we can simply kill this member/arg. The only explicit
user of check => 0 is rcu_lock_acquire(), perhaps we can change it to
use lock_acquire(trylock =>, read => 2). __lockdep_no_validate means
check => 0 implicitly, but we can change validate_chain() to check
hlock->instance->key instead. Not to mention it would be nice to get
rid of lockdep_set_novalidate_class().
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140120182006.GA26495@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Lockdep is an awesome piece of code which detects locking issues
which are relevant both to userspace and kernelspace. We can
easily make lockdep work in userspace since there is really no
kernel spacific magic going on in the code.
All we need is to wrap two functions which are used by lockdep
and are very kernel specific.
Doing that will allow tools located in tools/ to easily utilize
lockdep's code for their own use.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: penberg@kernel.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1352753446-24109-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
There are new Sparse warnings:
>> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1235:15: sparse: symbol '__lockdep_count_forward_deps' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1261:15: sparse: symbol '__lockdep_count_backward_deps' was not declared. Should it be static?
Please consider folding the attached diff :-)
Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/527d1787.ThzXGoUspZWehFDl\%fengguang.wu@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Linus Torvalds