Now we have four types of dependencies in the dependency graph, and not
all the pathes carry real dependencies (the dependencies that may cause
a deadlock), for example:

	Given lock A and B, if we have:

	CPU1			CPU2
	=============		==============
	write_lock(A);		read_lock(B);
	read_lock(B);		write_lock(A);

	(assuming read_lock(B) is a recursive reader)

	then we have dependencies A -(ER)-> B, and B -(SN)-> A, and a
	dependency path A -(ER)-> B -(SN)-> A.

	In lockdep w/o recursive locks, a dependency path from A to A
	means a deadlock. However, the above case is obviously not a
	deadlock, because no one holds B exclusively, therefore no one
	waits for the other to release B, so who get A first in CPU1 and
	CPU2 will run non-blockingly.

	As a result, dependency path A -(ER)-> B -(SN)-> A is not a
	real/strong dependency that could cause a deadlock.

From the observation above, we know that for a dependency path to be
real/strong, no two adjacent dependencies can be as -(*R)-> -(S*)->.

Now our mission is to make __bfs() traverse only the strong dependency
paths, which is simple: we record whether we only have -(*R)-> for the
previous lock_list of the path in lock_list::only_xr, and when we pick a
dependency in the traverse, we 1) filter out -(S*)-> dependency if the
previous lock_list only has -(*R)-> dependency (i.e. ->only_xr is true)
and 2) set the next lock_list::only_xr to true if we only have -(*R)->
left after we filter out dependencies based on 1), otherwise, set it to
false.

With this extension for __bfs(), we now need to initialize the root of
__bfs() properly (with a correct ->only_xr), to do so, we introduce some
helper functions, which also cleans up a little bit for the __bfs() root
initialization code.
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200807074238.1632519-8-boqun.feng@gmail.com