All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
	johan@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	hpa@zytor.com, tony@atomide.com,
	linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/urgent] locking/lockdep: Disable cross-release features for now
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:42:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171017144230.dwrrxnpseo7tv6rp@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710170929330.1932@nanos>


* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > > index 2689b7c..e270584 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > > @@ -1092,8 +1092,8 @@ config PROVE_LOCKING
> > > >  	select DEBUG_MUTEXES
> > > >  	select DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES if RT_MUTEXES
> > > >  	select DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > > > -	select LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
> > > > -	select LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS
> > > > +	select LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE if BROKEN
> > > > +	select LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS if BROKEN
> > > 
> > > I agree with disabling crossrelease as default, becasue of regression,
> > > as I originally did.
> > > 
> > > However, it's expected to spend more time once it's enabled. Is the
> > > following acceptable?
> > 
> > No, please fix performance.
> 
> You know very well that with the cross release stuff we have to take the
> performance hit of stack unwinding because we have no idea whether there
> will show up a new lock relation later or not. And there is not much you
> can do in that respect.
> 
> OTOH, the cross release feature unearthed real deadlocks already so it is a
> valuable debug feature and having an explicit config switch which defaults
> to N is well worth it.

I disagree, because even if that's correct, the choices are not binary. The 
performance regression was a slowdown of around 7x: lockdep boot overhead on that 
particula system went from +3 seconds to +21 seconds...

As a response to the performance regression I haven't seen _any_ attempt to 
measure, profile and generally quantify the performance impact, which would at 
least make it more believable that the overhead cannot be reduced. That really 
makes me worry about the code on a higher level than just whether it can be 
enabled by default or not.

Caring about the performance of debug features very much matters, _especially_ 
when they are expensive.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-17 14:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-13  9:03 Dramatic lockdep slowdown in 4.14 Johan Hovold
2017-10-13  9:03 ` Johan Hovold
2017-10-13  9:03 ` Johan Hovold
2017-10-13  9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-13  9:07   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-13  9:07   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-13  9:35   ` Johan Hovold
2017-10-13  9:35     ` Johan Hovold
2017-10-13  9:35     ` Johan Hovold
2017-10-14  7:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-14  7:26   ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-14  7:26   ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-14  8:11   ` Johan Hovold
2017-10-14  8:11     ` Johan Hovold
2017-10-14  8:11     ` Johan Hovold
2017-10-14 11:36   ` [tip:locking/urgent] locking/lockdep: Disable cross-release features for now tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2017-10-16  2:04     ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-17  7:12       ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-17  7:40         ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-17 14:42           ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-10-17 15:03             ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-17 16:21               ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-18  7:48               ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-18  5:31         ` Byungchul Park

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=20171017144230.dwrrxnpseo7tv6rp@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=johan@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.