locking/lockdep: Update comments on dependency search

The breadth-first search is implemented as flat-out non-recursive now, but
the comments are still describing it as recursive, update the comments in
that regard.

Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org
Cc: frederic@kernel.org
Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190506081939.74287-16-duyuyang@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 2e8ef6082f72c200a9054c4a35bf5e622cfea437..b2ca20aa69aafe08875e40fa6104a3cc51aa932c 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1381,6 +1381,10 @@ static inline struct list_head *get_dep_list(struct lock_list *lock, int offset)
        return lock_class + offset;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Forward- or backward-dependency search, used for both circular dependency
+ * checking and hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe checking.
+ */
 static int __bfs(struct lock_list *source_entry,
                 void *data,
                 int (*match)(struct lock_list *entry, void *data),
@@ -1461,12 +1465,6 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list *src_entry,
 
 }
 
-/*
- * Recursive, forwards-direction lock-dependency checking, used for
- * both noncyclic checking and for hardirq-unsafe/softirq-unsafe
- * checking.
- */
-
 static void print_lock_trace(struct lock_trace *trace, unsigned int spaces)
 {
        unsigned long *entries = stack_trace + trace->offset;
@@ -2285,7 +2283,7 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next, int read)
 
 /*
  * There was a chain-cache miss, and we are about to add a new dependency
- * to a previous lock. We recursively validate the following rules:
+ * to a previous lock. We validate the following rules:
  *
  *  - would the adding of the <prev> -> <next> dependency create a
  *    circular dependency in the graph? [== circular deadlock]
@@ -2335,11 +2333,12 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
        /*
         * Prove that the new <prev> -> <next> dependency would not
         * create a circular dependency in the graph. (We do this by
-        * forward-recursing into the graph starting at <next>, and
-        * checking whether we can reach <prev>.)
+        * a breadth-first search into the graph starting at <next>,
+        * and check whether we can reach <prev>.)
         *
-        * We are using global variables to control the recursion, to
-        * keep the stackframe size of the recursive functions low:
+        * The search is limited by the size of the circular queue (i.e.,
+        * MAX_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_SIZE) which keeps track of a breadth of nodes
+        * in the graph whose neighbours are to be checked.
         */
        this.class = hlock_class(next);
        this.parent = NULL;