* Herbert Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > bh_lock_sock(sk);
> > - if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk))
> > + if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk)) {
> > + /*
> > + * trylock + unlock semantics:
> > + */
> > + spin_release(&sk->sk_lock.slock.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> > + mutex_acquire(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>
> Although it would seem that keeping the spin lock would fit the actual
> semantics better. I suppose there must be a technical reason why this
> wouldn't work.
good point. The basic issue is the 'virtual lock inversion' that occurs
in the lock vs. release paths. [between taking the slock and taking the
new sk_lock type]
The situation is like this: we construct 'complex' lock types [mutex,
rwsem, sk_lock] out of 'primitive' lock types [spinlock, rwlock]. Both
the complex type and the primite types exist separately, and might have
lock-validator acquire/release operations. These locks can interact and
if we do the complex lock acquire/release while holding the primitive
lock, the validator sees inverse ordering between them.
For the mutex code i solved the inversion problem by using a
raw_spinlock for the primitive type (which has no lockdep operations),
hence the complex lock type.
But in this particular sk_lock case we can do it even more cleanly i
think and can preserve the lockdep awareness of the primitive type too:
by releasing the complex lock before taking the primitive lock in the
release_sock() unlock path. The updated patch below does this - and thus
i was able to remove the dropping of the primitive spinlock type.
it is not a problem that the release of the complex lock type does not
happen inside the critical section: from the point where we release the
complex lock-type _this_ context cannot take any other locks, so there
are no dependencies missed.
As you can see, the lock validator can easily cover completely new lock
types like sk_lock too, as long as the new lock type has some
minimalistic "works like a lock" properties. (such as owner-does-unlock)
later on i'll try the same cleanup for the mutex code too - it should be
possible. (that way the implementation of complex lock types can be
lock-validator checked too)
Ingo
--------------->
Subject: lockdep, annotate sk_locks
From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Teach sk_lock semantics to the lock validator. In the softirq path
the slock has mutex_trylock()+mutex_unlock() semantics, in the
process context sock_lock() case it has mutex_lock()/mutex_unlock()
semantics.
Thus we treat sock_owned_by_user() flagged areas as an exclusion
area too, not just those areas covered by a held sk_lock.slock.
Effect on non-lockdep kernels: minimal, sk_lock_sock_init() has
been turned into an inline function.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
---
include/net/sock.h | 20 +++++------
net/core/sock.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
Index: linux/include/net/sock.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/net/sock.h
+++ linux/include/net/sock.h
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
#include <linux/timer.h>
#include <linux/cache.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/lockdep.h>
#include <linux/netdevice.h>
#include <linux/skbuff.h> /* struct sk_buff */
#include <linux/security.h>
@@ -78,18 +79,17 @@ typedef struct {
spinlock_t slock;
struct sock_iocb *owner;
wait_queue_head_t wq;
+ /*
+ * We express the mutex-alike socket_lock semantics
+ * to the lock validator by explicitly managing
+ * the slock as a lock variant (in addition to
+ * the slock itself):
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+ struct lockdep_map dep_map;
+#endif
} socket_lock_t;
-extern struct lock_class_key af_family_keys[AF_MAX];
-
-#define sock_lock_init(__sk) \
-do { spin_lock_init(&((__sk)->sk_lock.slock)); \
- lockdep_set_class(&(__sk)->sk_lock.slock, \
- af_family_keys + (__sk)->sk_family); \
- (__sk)->sk_lock.owner = NULL; \
- init_waitqueue_head(&((__sk)->sk_lock.wq)); \
-} while(0)
-
struct sock;
struct proto;
Index: linux/net/core/sock.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/net/core/sock.c
+++ linux/net/core/sock.c
@@ -134,7 +134,40 @@
* Each address family might have different locking rules, so we have
* one slock key per address family:
*/
-struct lock_class_key af_family_keys[AF_MAX];
+static struct lock_class_key af_family_keys[AF_MAX];
+static struct lock_class_key af_family_slock_keys[AF_MAX];
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
+/*
+ * Make lock validator output more readable:
+ */
+static const char *af_family_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
+ "sk_lock-AF_UNSPEC", "sk_lock-AF_UNIX" , "sk_lock-AF_INET" ,
+ "sk_lock-AF_AX25" , "sk_lock-AF_IPX" , "sk_lock-AF_APPLETALK",
+ "sk_lock-AF_NETROM", "sk_lock-AF_BRIDGE" , "sk_lock-AF_ATMPVC" ,
+ "sk_lock-AF_X25" , "sk_lock-AF_INET6" , "sk_lock-AF_ROSE" ,
+ "sk_lock-AF_DECnet", "sk_lock-AF_NETBEUI" , "sk_lock-AF_SECURITY" ,
+ "sk_lock-AF_KEY" , "sk_lock-AF_NETLINK" , "sk_lock-AF_PACKET" ,
+ "sk_lock-AF_ASH" , "sk_lock-AF_ECONET" , "sk_lock-AF_ATMSVC" ,
+ "sk_lock-21" , "sk_lock-AF_SNA" , "sk_lock-AF_IRDA" ,
+ "sk_lock-AF_PPPOX" , "sk_lock-AF_WANPIPE" , "sk_lock-AF_LLC" ,
+ "sk_lock-27" , "sk_lock-28" , "sk_lock-29" ,
+ "sk_lock-AF_TIPC" , "sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH", "sk_lock-AF_MAX"
+};
+static const char *af_family_slock_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
+ "slock-AF_UNSPEC", "slock-AF_UNIX" , "slock-AF_INET" ,
+ "slock-AF_AX25" , "slock-AF_IPX" , "slock-AF_APPLETALK",
+ "slock-AF_NETROM", "slock-AF_BRIDGE" , "slock-AF_ATMPVC" ,
+ "slock-AF_X25" , "slock-AF_INET6" , "slock-AF_ROSE" ,
+ "slock-AF_DECnet", "slock-AF_NETBEUI" , "slock-AF_SECURITY" ,
+ "slock-AF_KEY" , "slock-AF_NETLINK" , "slock-AF_PACKET" ,
+ "slock-AF_ASH" , "slock-AF_ECONET" , "slock-AF_ATMSVC" ,
+ "slock-21" , "slock-AF_SNA" , "slock-AF_IRDA" ,
+ "slock-AF_PPPOX" , "slock-AF_WANPIPE" , "slock-AF_LLC" ,
+ "slock-27" , "slock-28" , "slock-29" ,
+ "slock-AF_TIPC" , "slock-AF_BLUETOOTH", "slock-AF_MAX"
+};
+#endif
/*
* sk_callback_lock locking rules are per-address-family,
@@ -250,9 +283,16 @@ int sk_receive_skb(struct sock *sk, stru
skb->dev = NULL;
bh_lock_sock(sk);
- if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk))
+ if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk)) {
+ /*
+ * trylock + unlock semantics:
+ */
+ mutex_acquire(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+
rc = sk->sk_backlog_rcv(sk, skb);
- else
+
+ mutex_release(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+ } else
sk_add_backlog(sk, skb);
bh_unlock_sock(sk);
out:
@@ -762,6 +802,30 @@ lenout:
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * Initialize an sk_lock.
+ *
+ * (We also register the sk_lock with the lock validator.)
+ */
+static void inline sock_lock_init(struct sock *sk)
+{
+ spin_lock_init(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
+ lockdep_set_class_and_name(&sk->sk_lock.slock,
+ af_family_slock_keys + sk->sk_family,
+ af_family_slock_key_strings[sk->sk_family]);
+ sk->sk_lock.owner = NULL;
+ init_waitqueue_head(&sk->sk_lock.wq);
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+ /*
+ * Make sure we are not reinitializing a held lock:
+ */
+ debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)&sk->sk_lock, sizeof(sk->sk_lock));
+ lockdep_init_map(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map,
+ af_family_key_strings[sk->sk_family],
+ af_family_keys + sk->sk_family);
+#endif
+}
+
/**
* sk_alloc - All socket objects are allocated here
* @family: protocol family
@@ -1466,24 +1530,34 @@ void sock_init_data(struct socket *sock,
void fastcall lock_sock(struct sock *sk)
{
might_sleep();
- spin_lock_bh(&(sk->sk_lock.slock));
+ spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
if (sk->sk_lock.owner)
__lock_sock(sk);
sk->sk_lock.owner = (void *)1;
- spin_unlock_bh(&(sk->sk_lock.slock));
+ spin_unlock(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
+ /*
+ * The sk_lock has mutex_lock() semantics here:
+ */
+ mutex_acquire(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
+ local_bh_enable();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(lock_sock);
void fastcall release_sock(struct sock *sk)
{
- spin_lock_bh(&(sk->sk_lock.slock));
+ /*
+ * The sk_lock has mutex_unlock() semantics:
+ */
+ mutex_release(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+
+ spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
if (sk->sk_backlog.tail)
__release_sock(sk);
sk->sk_lock.owner = NULL;
- if (waitqueue_active(&(sk->sk_lock.wq)))
- wake_up(&(sk->sk_lock.wq));
- spin_unlock_bh(&(sk->sk_lock.slock));
+ if (waitqueue_active(&sk->sk_lock.wq))
+ wake_up(&sk->sk_lock.wq);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(release_sock);
