From: Josh Poimboeuf <email@example.com> To: Ingo Molnar <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Waiman Long <email@example.com>, Peter Zijlstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ingo Molnar <email@example.com>, Will Deacon <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas Gleixner <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Petr Mladek <email@example.com>, Sergey Senozhatsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Andrey Ryabinin <email@example.com>, Tejun Heo <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Andrew Morton <email@example.com>, Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new class of terminal locks Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:22:50 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20181112222250.h37hkrj6warqewkd@treble> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181112063050.GB61749@gmail.com> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 07:30:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Josh Poimboeuf <email@example.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:10:33AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Waiman Long <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On 11/10/2018 09:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:04:12AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > >> BTW., if you are interested in more radical approaches to optimize > > > > >> lockdep, we could also add a static checker via objtool driven call graph > > > > >> analysis, and mark those locks terminal that we can prove are terminal. > > > > >> > > > > >> This would require the unified call graph of the kernel image and of all > > > > >> modules to be examined in a final pass, but that's within the principal > > > > >> scope of objtool. (This 'final pass' could also be done during bootup, at > > > > >> least in initial versions.) > > > > > > > > > > Something like this is needed for objtool LTO support as well. I just > > > > > dread the build time 'regressions' this will introduce :/ > > > > > > > > > > The final link pass is already by far the most expensive part (as > > > > > measured in wall-time) of building a kernel, adding more work there > > > > > would really suck :/ > > > > > > > > I think the idea is to make objtool have the capability to do that. It > > > > doesn't mean we need to turn it on by default in every build. > > > > > > Yeah. > > > > > > Also note that much of the objtool legwork would be on a per file basis > > > which is reasonably parallelized already. On x86 it's also already done > > > for every ORC build i.e. every distro build and the incremental overhead > > > from also extracting locking dependencies should be reasonably small. > > > > > > The final search of the global graph would be serialized but still > > > reasonably fast as these are all 'class' level dependencies which are > > > much less numerous than runtime dependencies. > > > > > > I.e. I think we are talking about tens of thousands of dependencies, not > > > tens of millions. > > > > > > At least in theory. ;-) > > > > Generating a unified call graph sounds very expensive (and very far > > beyond what objtool can do today). > > Well, objtool already goes through the instruction stream and recognizes > function calls - so it can in effect generate a stream of "function x > called by function y" data, correct? Yeah, though it would be quite simple to get the same data with a simple awk script at link time. > > Also, what about function pointers? > > So maybe it's possible to enumerate all potential values for function > pointers with a reasonably simple compiler plugin and work from there? I think this would be somewhere between very difficult and impossible to do properly. I can't even imagine how this would be implemented in a compiler plugin. But I'd love to be proven wrong on that. > One complication would be function pointers encoded as opaque data > types... > > > BTW there's another kernel static analysis tool which attempts to > > create such a call graph already: smatch. > > It's not included in the kernel tree though and I'd expect tight coupling > (or at least lock-step improvements) between tooling and lockdep here. Fair enough. Smatch's call tree isn't perfect anyway, but I don't think perfect is attainable. -- Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-12 22:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-11-08 20:34 Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 01/12] locking/lockdep: Rework lockdep_set_novalidate_class() Waiman Long 2018-11-10 14:14 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-11-11 0:26 ` Waiman Long 2018-11-11 1:28 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 02/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new terminal lock type Waiman Long 2018-11-10 14:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-11-11 0:28 ` Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 03/12] locking/lockdep: Add DEFINE_TERMINAL_SPINLOCK() and related macros Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 04/12] printk: Make logbuf_lock a terminal lock Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 05/12] debugobjects: Mark pool_lock as " Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 06/12] debugobjects: Move printk out of db lock critical sections Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 07/12] locking/lockdep: Add support for nested terminal locks Waiman Long 2018-11-10 14:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-11-11 0:30 ` Waiman Long 2018-11-11 1:30 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 08/12] debugobjects: Make object hash locks " Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 09/12] lib/stackdepot: Make depot_lock a terminal spinlock Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 10/12] locking/rwsem: Mark rwsem.wait_lock as a terminal lock Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 11/12] cgroup: Mark the rstat percpu lock as terminal Waiman Long 2018-11-08 20:34 ` [RFC PATCH 12/12] mm/kasan: Make quarantine_lock a terminal lock Waiman Long 2018-11-09 8:04 ` [RFC PATCH 00/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new class of terminal locks Ingo Molnar 2018-11-09 15:48 ` Waiman Long 2018-11-12 5:15 ` Ingo Molnar 2018-11-10 14:10 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-11-10 23:35 ` Waiman Long 2018-11-12 5:10 ` Ingo Molnar 2018-11-12 5:53 ` Josh Poimboeuf 2018-11-12 6:30 ` Ingo Molnar 2018-11-12 22:22 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message] 2018-11-12 22:56 ` Waiman Long
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=20181112222250.h37hkrj6warqewkd@treble \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new class of terminal locks' \ /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
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).