From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
Cc: "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"byungchul.park@lge.com" <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"kernel-team@lge.com" <kernel-team@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] lockdep: Remove BROKEN flag of LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:34:34 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191718260.1971@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1508425527.2429.11.camel@wdc.com>
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 14:55 +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Now the performance regression was fixed, re-enable
> > CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE and CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> > ---
> > lib/Kconfig.debug | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > index 90ea784..fe8fceb 100644
> > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > @@ -1138,8 +1138,8 @@ config PROVE_LOCKING
> > select DEBUG_MUTEXES
> > select DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES if RT_MUTEXES
> > select DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > - select LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE if BROKEN
> > - select LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS if BROKEN
> > + select LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
> > + select LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS
> > select TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> > default n
> > help
>
> I do not agree with this patch. Although the traditional lock validation
> code can be proven not to produce false positives, that is not the case for
> the cross-release checks. These checks are prone to produce false positives.
> Many kernel developers, including myself, are not interested in spending
> time on analyzing false positive deadlock reports. So I think that it is
> wrong to enable cross-release checking unconditionally if PROVE_LOCKING has
> been enabled. What I think that should happen is that either the cross-
> release checking code is removed from the kernel or that
> LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE becomes a new kernel configuration option. That will
> give kernel developers who choose to enable PROVE_LOCKING the freedom to
> decide whether or not to enable LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE.
I really disagree with your reasoning completely
1) When lockdep was introduced more than ten years ago it was far from
perfect and we spent a reasonable amount of time to improve it, analyze
false positives and add the missing annotations all over the tree. That
was a process which took years.
2) Surely nobody is interested in wasting time on analyzing false
positives, but your (and other peoples) attidute of 'none of my
business' is what makes kernel development extremly frustrating.
It should be in the interest of everybody involved in kernel development
to help with improving such features and not to lean back and wait for
others to bring it into a shape which allows you to use it as you see
fit.
That's not how community works and lockdep would not be in the shape it is
today, if only a handful of people would have used and improved it. Such
things only work when used widely and when we get enough information so we
can address the weak spots.
Thanks,
tglx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
Cc: "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"byungchul.park@lge.com" <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"kernel-team@lge.com" <kernel-team@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] lockdep: Remove BROKEN flag of LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:34:34 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191718260.1971@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1508425527.2429.11.camel@wdc.com>
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 14:55 +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Now the performance regression was fixed, re-enable
> > CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE and CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> > ---
> > lib/Kconfig.debug | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > index 90ea784..fe8fceb 100644
> > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > @@ -1138,8 +1138,8 @@ config PROVE_LOCKING
> > select DEBUG_MUTEXES
> > select DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES if RT_MUTEXES
> > select DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > - select LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE if BROKEN
> > - select LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS if BROKEN
> > + select LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
> > + select LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS
> > select TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> > default n
> > help
>
> I do not agree with this patch. Although the traditional lock validation
> code can be proven not to produce false positives, that is not the case for
> the cross-release checks. These checks are prone to produce false positives.
> Many kernel developers, including myself, are not interested in spending
> time on analyzing false positive deadlock reports. So I think that it is
> wrong to enable cross-release checking unconditionally if PROVE_LOCKING has
> been enabled. What I think that should happen is that either the cross-
> release checking code is removed from the kernel or that
> LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE becomes a new kernel configuration option. That will
> give kernel developers who choose to enable PROVE_LOCKING the freedom to
> decide whether or not to enable LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE.
I really disagree with your reasoning completely
1) When lockdep was introduced more than ten years ago it was far from
perfect and we spent a reasonable amount of time to improve it, analyze
false positives and add the missing annotations all over the tree. That
was a process which took years.
2) Surely nobody is interested in wasting time on analyzing false
positives, but your (and other peoples) attidute of 'none of my
business' is what makes kernel development extremly frustrating.
It should be in the interest of everybody involved in kernel development
to help with improving such features and not to lean back and wait for
others to bring it into a shape which allows you to use it as you see
fit.
That's not how community works and lockdep would not be in the shape it is
today, if only a handful of people would have used and improved it. Such
things only work when used widely and when we get enough information so we
can address the weak spots.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-19 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-19 5:55 [PATCH v2 0/3] crossrelease: make it not unwind by default Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 5:55 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 5:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] lockdep: Introduce CROSSRELEASE_STACK_TRACE and make it not unwind as default Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 5:55 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 5:55 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] lockdep: Remove BROKEN flag of LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 5:55 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 15:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-19 15:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-19 15:34 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2017-10-19 15:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 15:47 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-19 19:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 19:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 19:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 19:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 20:21 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-19 20:21 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-19 20:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-10-19 20:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-10-19 20:41 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-19 20:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 20:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 20:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-19 20:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-20 7:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-20 7:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-20 6:03 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-20 6:03 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 5:55 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] lockdep: Add a kernel parameter, crossrelease_fullstack Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 5:55 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix false positives by cross-release feature Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] completion: Add support for initializing completion with lockdep_map Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt workqueue flush Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] genhd.h: Remove trailing white space Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] lockdep: Assign a lock_class per gendisk used for wait_for_completion() Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 7:03 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-20 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-20 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-20 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-22 23:53 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-22 23:53 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-23 6:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-23 6:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-23 7:04 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-23 7:04 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-21 19:17 ` kbuild test robot
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=alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191718260.1971@nanos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com \
--cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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: 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.