usage[i] = '\0';
}
+static int __print_lock_name(struct lock_class *class)
+{
+ char str[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
+ const char *name;
+
+ name = class->name;
+ if (!name)
+ name = __get_key_name(class->key, str);
+
+ return printk("%s", name);
+}
+
static void print_lock_name(struct lock_class *class)
{
char str[KSYM_NAME_LEN], usage[LOCK_USAGE_CHARS];
return 0;
}
+static void
+print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src,
+ struct held_lock *tgt,
+ struct lock_list *prt)
+{
+ struct lock_class *source = hlock_class(src);
+ struct lock_class *target = hlock_class(tgt);
+ struct lock_class *parent = prt->class;
+
+ /*
+ * A direct locking problem where unsafe_class lock is taken
+ * directly by safe_class lock, then all we need to show
+ * is the deadlock scenario, as it is obvious that the
+ * unsafe lock is taken under the safe lock.
+ *
+ * But if there is a chain instead, where the safe lock takes
+ * an intermediate lock (middle_class) where this lock is
+ * not the same as the safe lock, then the lock chain is
+ * used to describe the problem. Otherwise we would need
+ * to show a different CPU case for each link in the chain
+ * from the safe_class lock to the unsafe_class lock.
+ */
+ if (parent != source) {
+ printk("Chain exists of:\n ");
+ __print_lock_name(source);
+ printk(" --> ");
+ __print_lock_name(parent);
+ printk(" --> ");
+ __print_lock_name(target);
+ printk("\n\n");
+ }
+
+ printk(" Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n");
+ printk(" CPU0 CPU1\n");
+ printk(" ---- ----\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(target);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(parent);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(target);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(source);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n");
+}
+
/*
* When a circular dependency is detected, print the
* header first:
{
struct task_struct *curr = current;
struct lock_list *parent;
+ struct lock_list *first_parent;
int depth;
if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock() || debug_locks_silent)
print_circular_bug_header(target, depth, check_src, check_tgt);
parent = get_lock_parent(target);
+ first_parent = parent;
while (parent) {
print_circular_bug_entry(parent, --depth);
}
printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
+ print_circular_lock_scenario(check_src, check_tgt,
+ first_parent);
+
lockdep_print_held_locks(curr);
printk("\nstack backtrace:\n");
return;
}
+static void
+print_irq_lock_scenario(struct lock_list *safe_entry,
+ struct lock_list *unsafe_entry,
+ struct held_lock *prev,
+ struct held_lock *next)
+{
+ struct lock_class *safe_class = safe_entry->class;
+ struct lock_class *unsafe_class = unsafe_entry->class;
+ struct lock_class *middle_class = hlock_class(prev);
+
+ if (middle_class == safe_class)
+ middle_class = hlock_class(next);
+
+ /*
+ * A direct locking problem where unsafe_class lock is taken
+ * directly by safe_class lock, then all we need to show
+ * is the deadlock scenario, as it is obvious that the
+ * unsafe lock is taken under the safe lock.
+ *
+ * But if there is a chain instead, where the safe lock takes
+ * an intermediate lock (middle_class) where this lock is
+ * not the same as the safe lock, then the lock chain is
+ * used to describe the problem. Otherwise we would need
+ * to show a different CPU case for each link in the chain
+ * from the safe_class lock to the unsafe_class lock.
+ */
+ if (middle_class != unsafe_class) {
+ printk("Chain exists of:\n ");
+ __print_lock_name(safe_class);
+ printk(" --> ");
+ __print_lock_name(middle_class);
+ printk(" --> ");
+ __print_lock_name(unsafe_class);
+ printk("\n\n");
+ }
+
+ printk(" Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:\n\n");
+ printk(" CPU0 CPU1\n");
+ printk(" ---- ----\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(unsafe_class);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" local_irq_disable();\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(safe_class);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(middle_class);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" <Interrupt>\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(safe_class);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n");
+}
+
static int
print_bad_irq_dependency(struct task_struct *curr,
struct lock_list *prev_root,
print_stack_trace(forwards_entry->class->usage_traces + bit2, 1);
printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
+ print_irq_lock_scenario(backwards_entry, forwards_entry, prev, next);
+
lockdep_print_held_locks(curr);
printk("\nthe dependencies between %s-irq-safe lock", irqclass);
#endif
+static void
+print_deadlock_scenario(struct held_lock *nxt,
+ struct held_lock *prv)
+{
+ struct lock_class *next = hlock_class(nxt);
+ struct lock_class *prev = hlock_class(prv);
+
+ printk(" Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n");
+ printk(" CPU0\n");
+ printk(" ----\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(prev);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(next);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n");
+ printk(" May be due to missing lock nesting notation\n\n");
+}
+
static int
print_deadlock_bug(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
struct held_lock *next)
print_lock(prev);
printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n");
+ print_deadlock_scenario(next, prev);
lockdep_print_held_locks(curr);
printk("\nstack backtrace:\n");
if (unlikely(curr->hardirqs_enabled)) {
/*
* Neither irq nor preemption are disabled here
- * so this is racy by nature but loosing one hit
+ * so this is racy by nature but losing one hit
* in a stat is not a big deal.
*/
__debug_atomic_inc(redundant_hardirqs_on);
if (!graph_lock())
return 0;
/*
- * Make sure we didnt race:
+ * Make sure we didn't race:
*/
if (unlikely(hlock_class(this)->usage_mask & new_mask)) {
graph_unlock();
projects / mv-sheeva.git / blobdiff