RE: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

From	"Byungchul Park" <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	RE: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]
Date	2017-08-30 11:00 +0200
Message-ID	<uk70S-66H-41@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <uk3zY-484-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <uk430-4hO-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <uk4w2-4Jz-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <uk6Rc-63h-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <uk6Rd-63h-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@infradead.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:48 PM
> To: Sergey Senozhatsky
> Cc: Byungchul Park; Bart Van Assche; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> block@vger.kernel.org; martin.petersen@oracle.com; axboe@kernel.dk; linux-
> scsi@vger.kernel.org; sfr@canb.auug.org.au; linux-next@vger.kernel.org;
> kernel-team@lge.com
> Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-
> next: Tree for Aug 22]
> 
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it
> > harder to find and fix.
> >
> > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I've not yet
> > checked if crossrelease does too much of that.
> 
> Aah, we do an unconditional stack unwind for every __lock_acquire() now.
> It keeps a trace in the xhlocks[].

Yeah.. I also think this is most significant..

> 
> Does the below cure most of that overhead?
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 44c8d0d17170..7b872036b72e 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -4872,7 +4872,7 @@ static void add_xhlock(struct held_lock *hlock)
>  	xhlock->trace.max_entries = MAX_XHLOCK_TRACE_ENTRIES;
>  	xhlock->trace.entries = xhlock->trace_entries;
>  	xhlock->trace.skip = 3;
> -	save_stack_trace(&xhlock->trace);
> +	/* save_stack_trace(&xhlock->trace); */
>  }
> 
>  static inline int same_context_xhlock(struct hist_lock *xhlock)

Thread

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next:  Tree for Aug 22] Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 07:20 +0200
  Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next:  Tree for Aug 22] Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-08-30 07:50 +0200
    Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next:  Tree for Aug 22] Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 08:20 +0200
      Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next:  Tree for Aug 22] Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-08-30 10:50 +0200
        Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next:  Tree for Aug 22] Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-08-30 10:50 +0200
          RE: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22] "Byungchul Park" <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-08-30 11:00 +0200
          Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next:  Tree for Aug 22] Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 14:30 +0200

csiph-web