From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: Up MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:47:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171130074718.hzed67wrwjtv4byu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171129154145.26755-3-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 04:41:45PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> cross-release ftl
>
> From Chris:
>
> "Fwiw, this isn't cross-release but us reloading the module many times,
> creating a whole host of new lockclasses. Even more fun is when the
> module gets a slightly different address and the new lock address hashes
> into an old lock...
Yeah, this is a known issue, just reboot.
> "I did think about a module-hook to revoke the stale lockclasses, but
> that still leaves all the hashed chains.
Its an absolute royal pain to remove all the resources consumed by a
module, and if you manage you then have to deal with fragmented storage
-- that is, we need to go keep track of which entries are used.
Its a giant heap of complexity that's just not worth it.
Given all that, I don't see why we should up this. Just don't reload
modules (or better, don't use modules at all).
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: Up MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:47:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171130074718.hzed67wrwjtv4byu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171129154145.26755-3-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 04:41:45PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> cross-release ftl
>
> From Chris:
>
> "Fwiw, this isn't cross-release but us reloading the module many times,
> creating a whole host of new lockclasses. Even more fun is when the
> module gets a slightly different address and the new lock address hashes
> into an old lock...
Yeah, this is a known issue, just reboot.
> "I did think about a module-hook to revoke the stale lockclasses, but
> that still leaves all the hashed chains.
Its an absolute royal pain to remove all the resources consumed by a
module, and if you manage you then have to deal with fragmented storage
-- that is, we need to go keep track of which entries are used.
Its a giant heap of complexity that's just not worth it.
Given all that, I don't see why we should up this. Just don't reload
modules (or better, don't use modules at all).
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-30 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-29 15:41 [PATCH 0/2] lockdep cross-release fallout from -rc1 Daniel Vetter
2017-11-29 15:41 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-11-29 15:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: finer-grained completion key for kthread Daniel Vetter
2017-11-29 15:41 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-12-04 8:16 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-12-04 8:16 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-11-29 15:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: Up MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS Daniel Vetter
2017-11-29 15:41 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-11-30 7:47 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-11-30 7:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-11-30 8:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-11-30 8:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-11-30 9:19 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for lockdep cross-release fallout from -rc1 Patchwork
2017-11-30 13:37 ` Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-11-29 9:46 [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: finer-grained completion key for kthread Daniel Vetter
2017-11-29 9:46 ` [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: Up MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS Daniel Vetter
2017-11-29 9:57 ` Chris Wilson
2017-11-29 10:01 ` Chris Wilson
2017-11-29 10:27 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-11-28 17:07 [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: finer-grained completion key for kthread Daniel Vetter
2017-11-28 17:07 ` [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: Up MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS Daniel Vetter
2017-11-28 17:22 ` Chris Wilson
2017-11-29 8:02 ` Daniel Vetter
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=20171130074718.hzed67wrwjtv4byu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marta.lofstedt@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com \
/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: link
Be 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.