@@ -1941,7 +1941,56 @@ static void print_lock_class_header(struct lock_class *class, int depth)
}
/*
- * printk the shortest lock dependencies from @start to @end in reverse order:
+ * Dependency path printing:
+ *
+ * After BFS we get a lock dependency path (linked via ->parent of lock_list),
+ * printing out each lock in the dependency path will help on understanding how
+ * the deadlock could happen. Here are some details about dependency path
+ * printing:
+ *
+ * 1) A lock_list can be either forwards or backwards for a lock dependency,
+ * for a lock dependency A -> B, there are two lock_lists:
+ *
+ * a) lock_list in the ->locks_after list of A, whose ->class is B and
+ * ->links_to is A. In this case, we can say the lock_list is
+ * "A -> B" (forwards case).
+ *
+ * b) lock_list in the ->locks_before list of B, whose ->class is A
+ * and ->links_to is B. In this case, we can say the lock_list is
+ * "B <- A" (bacwards case).
+ *
+ * The ->trace of both a) and b) point to the call trace where B was
+ * acquired with A held.
+ *
+ * 2) A "helper" lock_list is introduced during BFS, this lock_list doesn't
+ * represent a certain lock dependency, it only provides an initial entry
+ * for BFS. For example, BFS may introduce a "helper" lock_list whose
+ * ->class is A, as a result BFS will search all dependencies starting with
+ * A, e.g. A -> B or A -> C.
+ *
+ * The notation of a forwards helper lock_list is like "-> A", which means
+ * we should search the forwards dependencies starting with "A", e.g A -> B
+ * or A -> C.
+ *
+ * The notation of a bacwards helper lock_list is like "<- B", which means
+ * we should search the backwards dependencies ending with "B", e.g.
+ * B <- A or B <- C.
+ */
+
+/*
+ * printk the shortest lock dependencies from @root to @leaf in reverse order.
+ *
+ * We have a lock dependency path as follow:
+ *
+ * @root @leaf
+ * | |
+ * V V
+ * ->parent ->parent
+ * | lock_list | <--------- | lock_list | ... | lock_list | <--------- | lock_list |
+ * | -> L1 | | L1 -> L2 | ... |Ln-2 -> Ln-1| | Ln-1 -> Ln|
+ *
+ * , so it's natural that we start from @leaf and print every ->class and
+ * ->trace until we reach the @root.
*/
static void __used
print_shortest_lock_dependencies(struct lock_list *leaf,
@@ -1969,6 +2018,61 @@ print_shortest_lock_dependencies(struct lock_list *leaf,
} while (entry && (depth >= 0));
}
+/*
+ * printk the shortest lock dependencies from @leaf to @root.
+ *
+ * We have a lock dependency path (from a backwards search) as follow:
+ *
+ * @leaf @root
+ * | |
+ * V V
+ * ->parent ->parent
+ * | lock_list | ---------> | lock_list | ... | lock_list | ---------> | lock_list |
+ * | L2 <- L1 | | L3 <- L2 | ... | Ln <- Ln-1 | | <- Ln |
+ *
+ * , so when we iterate from @leaf to @root, we actually print the lock
+ * dependency path L1 -> L2 -> .. -> Ln in the non-reverse order.
+ *
+ * Another thing to notice here is that ->class of L2 <- L1 is L1, while the
+ * ->trace of L2 <- L1 is the call trace of L2, in fact we don't have the call
+ * trace of L1 in the dependency path, which is alright, because most of the
+ * time we can figure out where L1 is held from the call trace of L2.
+ */
+static void __used
+print_shortest_lock_dependencies_backwards(struct lock_list *leaf,
+ struct lock_list *root)
+{
+ struct lock_list *entry = leaf;
+ const struct lock_trace *trace = NULL;
+ int depth;
+
+ /*compute depth from generated tree by BFS*/
+ depth = get_lock_depth(leaf);
+
+ do {
+ print_lock_class_header(entry->class, depth);
+ if (trace) {
+ printk("%*s ... acquired at:\n", depth, "");
+ print_lock_trace(trace, 2);
+ printk("\n");
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Record the pointer to the trace for the next lock_list
+ * entry, see the comments for the function.
+ */
+ trace = entry->trace;
+
+ if (depth == 0 && (entry != root)) {
+ printk("lockdep:%s bad path found in chain graph\n", __func__);
+ break;
+ }
+
+ entry = get_lock_parent(entry);
+ depth--;
+ } while (entry && (depth >= 0));
+}
+
static void
print_irq_lock_scenario(struct lock_list *safe_entry,
struct lock_list *unsafe_entry,
@@ -2086,7 +2190,7 @@ print_bad_irq_dependency(struct task_struct *curr,
prev_root->trace = save_trace();
if (!prev_root->trace)
return;
- print_shortest_lock_dependencies(backwards_entry, prev_root);
+ print_shortest_lock_dependencies_backwards(backwards_entry, prev_root);
pr_warn("\nthe dependencies between the lock to be acquired");
pr_warn(" and %s-irq-unsafe lock:\n", irqclass);