Kernel/linux-next
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git synced 2024-12-28 00:32:00 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

locking/ww_mutex: Fix ww_mutex dummy lockdep map selftest warnings

Browse Source 
The below commit introduces a dummy lockdep map, but didn't get
the initialization quite right (it should mimic the initialization
of the real ww_mutex lockdep maps). It also introduced a separate
locking api selftest failure. Fix these.

Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Zw19sMtnKdyOVQoh@boqun-archlinux/
Fixes: 823a566221 ("locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements")
Reported-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241127085430.3045-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com
This commit is contained in:
Thomas Hellström 2024-11-27 09:54:30 +01:00 committed by Peter Zijlstra
parent 40384c840e
commit 0302d2fd6e
2 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
include/linux/ww_mutex.h
View File

@ -156,8 +156,8 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
&ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class->mutex_name,
&ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
lockdep_init_map_wait(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class->mutex_name,
&ww_class->mutex_key, 0, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
#endif

4
lib/locking-selftest.c
View File

@ -1720,8 +1720,6 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
{
int ret;
WWAI(&t);
/*
* None of the ww_mutex codepaths should be taken in the 'normal'
* mutex calls. The easiest way to verify this is by using the
@ -1770,6 +1768,8 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
ww_mutex_base_unlock(&o.base);
WARN_ON(o.ctx != (void *)~0UL);
WWAI(&t);
/* nest_lock */
o.ctx = (void *)~0UL;
ww_mutex_base_lock_nest_lock(&o.base, &t);