From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mutex: make mutex_lock_nested an inline function Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:07:17 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20151014110717.GT17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20151014102706.GR14956@sirena.org.uk> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27:06AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:20:50AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Uuh, I just looked at next and saw this regulator_lock_supply() > > function. How is that limited? subclass must be <8 otherwise bad things > > happen. > > Can we please get some more discoverable documentation of the arbitrary > limits in the lockdep code? include/linux/lockdep.h:#define MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES 8UL Also, it will give a runtime warn if you ever do hit that. > I seem to keep seeing code that bumps into > surprising limits like this and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know > about them except through finding out after the fact or trawling the > code every time someone touches locking. Not knowing what other limits you've hit, I'm not entirely sure how to help out there. > I would be very surprised to see a system that pushes over 8 locks, > while there's nothing actually preventing it system design > considerations mean that even four cascaded supplies are pretty > unlikely so we should be fine. Every time you add a new level of > regulation you're both increasing the load on regulators up the chain > (which means they need to be bigger and more expensive) and except in > the case of a DCDC supplying an LDO (which only works to one level) > you're going to be decreasing the efficiency of the system. If we get > to that point we can worry about what to do. OK I suppose.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] mutex: make mutex_lock_nested an inline function Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:07:17 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20151014110717.GT17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20151014102706.GR14956@sirena.org.uk> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27:06AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:20:50AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Uuh, I just looked at next and saw this regulator_lock_supply() > > function. How is that limited? subclass must be <8 otherwise bad things > > happen. > > Can we please get some more discoverable documentation of the arbitrary > limits in the lockdep code? include/linux/lockdep.h:#define MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES 8UL Also, it will give a runtime warn if you ever do hit that. > I seem to keep seeing code that bumps into > surprising limits like this and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know > about them except through finding out after the fact or trawling the > code every time someone touches locking. Not knowing what other limits you've hit, I'm not entirely sure how to help out there. > I would be very surprised to see a system that pushes over 8 locks, > while there's nothing actually preventing it system design > considerations mean that even four cascaded supplies are pretty > unlikely so we should be fine. Every time you add a new level of > regulation you're both increasing the load on regulators up the chain > (which means they need to be bigger and more expensive) and except in > the case of a DCDC supplying an LDO (which only works to one level) > you're going to be decreasing the efficiency of the system. If we get > to that point we can worry about what to do. OK I suppose.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-14 11:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-10-13 20:30 [PATCH] mutex: make mutex_lock_nested an inline function Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-13 20:30 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-13 20:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-13 20:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-13 21:46 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-13 21:46 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-14 8:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 8:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-14 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-14 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 9:59 ` Mark Brown 2015-10-14 9:59 ` Mark Brown 2015-10-14 10:27 ` Mark Brown 2015-10-14 10:27 ` Mark Brown 2015-10-14 11:07 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message] 2015-10-14 11:07 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 12:36 ` Mark Brown 2015-10-14 12:36 ` Mark Brown 2015-10-14 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 13:50 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 13:50 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-14 13:58 ` Ingo Molnar 2015-10-14 13:58 ` Ingo Molnar 2015-10-14 14:11 ` Mark Brown 2015-10-14 14:11 ` Mark Brown 2015-10-22 15:02 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-22 15:02 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-10-22 15:09 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-22 15:09 ` Peter Zijlstra 2015-10-22 17:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2015-10-22 17:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2015-10-27 18:13 ` Ingo Molnar 2015-10-27 18:13 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20151014110717.GT17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \ --to=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \ --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mingo@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.