All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
To: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@windriver.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@gmail.com>,
	Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
	"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: reduce stack_trace usage
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:40:44 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100423134044.GA2777@zhy-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <w2v520f0cf11004230131i743c596emfd0e5b8870330a8b@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:31:16AM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > Non of these numbers look strange..
> >
> 
> As I told Peter privately the laptop that triggered the
> MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES every time, has met an
> unfortunate early demise. However, I think it was the config - not the
> hardware. On this machine where the above
> numbers come from, I believe I have less debug options configured -
> but it is running the exact same kernel as
> the laptop was. (2.6.33.2-rt13)

Hi John,

(checking mail at home).
I find some place which can be hacked. Below is the patch.
But I don't even compile it. Can you test it to see if it can smooth
your problem.

---cut here ---
>From 6b9d513b7c417c0805ef0acc1cb3227bddba0889 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:13:54 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: reduce stack_trace usage

When calling check_prevs_add(), if all validations passed
add_lock_to_list() will add new lock to dependency tree and
alloc stack_trace for each list_entry. But at this time,
we are always on the same stack, so stack_trace for each
list_entry has the same value. This is redundant and eats up
lots of memory which could lead to warning on low
MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES.
Using one copy of stack_trace instead.

Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
---
 kernel/lockdep.c |   20 ++++++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
index 2594e1c..097d5fb 100644
--- a/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -818,7 +818,8 @@ static struct lock_list *alloc_list_entry(void)
  * Add a new dependency to the head of the list:
  */
 static int add_lock_to_list(struct lock_class *class, struct lock_class *this,
-			    struct list_head *head, unsigned long ip, int distance)
+			    struct list_head *head, unsigned long ip,
+			    int distance, struct stack_trace *trace)
 {
 	struct lock_list *entry;
 	/*
@@ -829,11 +830,9 @@ static int add_lock_to_list(struct lock_class *class, struct lock_class *this,
 	if (!entry)
 		return 0;
 
-	if (!save_trace(&entry->trace))
-		return 0;
-
 	entry->class = this;
 	entry->distance = distance;
+	entry->trace = *trace;
 	/*
 	 * Since we never remove from the dependency list, the list can
 	 * be walked lockless by other CPUs, it's only allocation
@@ -1635,7 +1634,7 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next,
  */
 static int
 check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
-	       struct held_lock *next, int distance)
+	       struct held_lock *next, int distance, struct stack_trace *trace)
 {
 	struct lock_list *entry;
 	int ret;
@@ -1694,14 +1693,14 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
 	 */
 	ret = add_lock_to_list(hlock_class(prev), hlock_class(next),
 			       &hlock_class(prev)->locks_after,
-			       next->acquire_ip, distance);
+			       next->acquire_ip, distance, trace);
 
 	if (!ret)
 		return 0;
 
 	ret = add_lock_to_list(hlock_class(next), hlock_class(prev),
 			       &hlock_class(next)->locks_before,
-			       next->acquire_ip, distance);
+			       next->acquire_ip, distance, trace);
 	if (!ret)
 		return 0;
 
@@ -1732,6 +1731,7 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 {
 	int depth = curr->lockdep_depth;
 	struct held_lock *hlock;
+	struct stack_trace trace;
 
 	/*
 	 * Debugging checks.
@@ -1748,6 +1748,9 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 			curr->held_locks[depth-1].irq_context)
 		goto out_bug;
 
+	if (!save_trace(&trace))
+		return 0;
+
 	for (;;) {
 		int distance = curr->lockdep_depth - depth + 1;
 		hlock = curr->held_locks + depth-1;
@@ -1756,7 +1759,8 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 		 * added:
 		 */
 		if (hlock->read != 2) {
-			if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next, distance))
+			if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
+						distance, &trace))
 				return 0;
 			/*
 			 * Stop after the first non-trylock entry,
-- 
1.6.3.3

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-04-23 13:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-22 20:15 [PATCH] lockdep: Add nr_save_trace_invocations counter John Kacur
2010-04-23  2:58 ` Yong Zhang
2010-04-23  6:52   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-23  8:03     ` Yong Zhang
2010-04-23  7:24   ` John Kacur
2010-04-23  8:00     ` Yong Zhang
2010-04-23  8:05     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-23  8:31       ` John Kacur
2010-04-23  8:31         ` John Kacur
2010-04-23  8:49         ` Yong Zhang
2010-04-23  9:40           ` John Kacur
2010-04-23 13:40         ` Yong Zhang [this message]
2010-04-26  6:24           ` [PATCH] lockdep: reduce stack_trace usage Yong Zhang
2010-05-03 12:11           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-04  6:37             ` Yong Zhang
2010-05-04  6:57           ` [PATCH V2] " Yong Zhang
2010-05-04 12:56             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-05  1:31               ` Yong Zhang
2010-05-05  9:09                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-05  9:18                   ` Yong Zhang
2010-05-07 18:40             ` [tip:core/locking] lockdep: Reduce " tip-bot for Yong Zhang

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=20100423134044.GA2777@zhy-desktop \
    --to=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
    --cc=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thebigcorporation@gmail.com \
    --cc=williams@redhat.com \
    --cc=yong.zhang@windriver.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.