Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1590841 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> - 2017-03-02 05:50 +0100
    RE: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature "byungchul.park" <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-03-02 07:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> - 2017-03-02 15:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-03-03 01:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-03-05 09:10 +0100

#1590841 — Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> (And we should not be returning to userspace with locks held anyway --
> lockdep already has a check for that).

Don't we return to userspace with page locks held, eg during async directio?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1590857

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Wilcox [mailto:willy@infradead.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 1:20 PM
> To: Peter Zijlstra
> Cc: Byungchul Park; mingo@kernel.org; tglx@linutronix.de;
> walken@google.com; boqun.feng@gmail.com; kirill@shutemov.name; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org; iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com;
> akpm@linux-foundation.org; npiggin@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature
> 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > (And we should not be returning to userspace with locks held anyway --
> > lockdep already has a check for that).
> 
> Don't we return to userspace with page locks held, eg during async
> directio?

Hello,

I think that the check when returning to user with crosslocks held
should be an exception. Don't you think so?

Thanks,
Byungchul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1591141

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:45:35PM +0900, byungchul.park wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox [mailto:willy@infradead.org]
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > (And we should not be returning to userspace with locks held anyway --
> > > lockdep already has a check for that).
> > 
> > Don't we return to userspace with page locks held, eg during async
> > directio?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I think that the check when returning to user with crosslocks held
> should be an exception. Don't you think so?

Oh yes.  We have to keep the pages locked during reads, and we have to
return to userspace before I/O is complete, therefore we have to return
to userspace with pages locked.  They'll be unlocked by the interrupt
handler in page_endio().

Speaking of which ... this feature is far too heavy for use in production
on pages.  You're almost trebling the size of struct page.  Can we
do something like make all struct pages share the same lockdep_map?
We'd have to not complain about holding one crossdep lock and acquiring
another one of the same type, but with millions of pages in the system,
it must surely be creating a gargantuan graph right now?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1591563

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 06:39:49AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:45:35PM +0900, byungchul.park wrote:
> > From: Matthew Wilcox [mailto:willy@infradead.org]
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > (And we should not be returning to userspace with locks held anyway --
> > > > lockdep already has a check for that).
> > > 
> > > Don't we return to userspace with page locks held, eg during async
> > > directio?
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I think that the check when returning to user with crosslocks held
> > should be an exception. Don't you think so?
> 
> Oh yes.  We have to keep the pages locked during reads, and we have to
> return to userspace before I/O is complete, therefore we have to return
> to userspace with pages locked.  They'll be unlocked by the interrupt
> handler in page_endio().

Agree.

> Speaking of which ... this feature is far too heavy for use in production
> on pages.  You're almost trebling the size of struct page.  Can we
> do something like make all struct pages share the same lockdep_map?
> We'd have to not complain about holding one crossdep lock and acquiring
> another one of the same type, but with millions of pages in the system,
> it must surely be creating a gargantuan graph right now?

Um.. I will try it for page locks to work with one lockmap. That is also
what Peterz pointed out and what I worried about when implementing..

Thanks for your opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1592705

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 08:50:03AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 06:39:49AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:45:35PM +0900, byungchul.park wrote:
> > > From: Matthew Wilcox [mailto:willy@infradead.org]
> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > (And we should not be returning to userspace with locks held anyway --
> > > > > lockdep already has a check for that).
> > > > 
> > > > Don't we return to userspace with page locks held, eg during async
> > > > directio?
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I think that the check when returning to user with crosslocks held
> > > should be an exception. Don't you think so?
> > 
> > Oh yes.  We have to keep the pages locked during reads, and we have to
> > return to userspace before I/O is complete, therefore we have to return
> > to userspace with pages locked.  They'll be unlocked by the interrupt
> > handler in page_endio().
> 
> Agree.
> 
> > Speaking of which ... this feature is far too heavy for use in production
> > on pages.  You're almost trebling the size of struct page.  Can we
> > do something like make all struct pages share the same lockdep_map?
> > We'd have to not complain about holding one crossdep lock and acquiring
> > another one of the same type, but with millions of pages in the system,
> > it must surely be creating a gargantuan graph right now?
> 
> Um.. I will try it for page locks to work with one lockmap. That is also
> what Peterz pointed out and what I worried about when implementing..

I've thought it more and it seems not to be good. We could not use
subclass feature if we make page locks work with only one lockmap
instance. And there are several things we have to give up, that are,
things using each field in struct lockdep_map. So now, I'm not sure I
should change the current implementation. What do you think about it?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web