From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Xfs lockdep warning with for-dave-for-4.6 branch
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:22:54 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160602232254.GR12670@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160602154619.GU1995@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:46:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 02-06-16 17:11:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > With scope I mostly meant the fact that you have two calls that you need
> > to pair up. That's not really nice as you can 'annotate' a _lot_ of code
> > in between. I prefer the narrower annotations where you annotate a
> > single specific site.
>
> Yes, I can see you point. What I meant to say is that we would most
> probably end up with the following pattern
> lockdep_trace_alloc_enable()
> some_foo_with_alloc(gfp_mask);
> lockdep_trace_alloc_disable()
>
> and some_foo_with_alloc might be a lot of code.
That's the problem I see with this - the only way to make it
maintainable is to precede each enable/disable() pair with a comment
explaining *exactly* what those calls are protecting. And that, in
itself, becomes a maintenance problem, because then code several
layers deep has no idea what context it is being called from and we
are likely to disable warnings in contexts where we probably
shouldn't be.
I think such an annotation approach really requires per-alloc site
annotation, the reason for it should be more obvious from the
context. e.g. any function that does memory alloc and takes an
optional transaction context needs annotation. Hence, from an XFS
perspective, I think it makes more sense to add a new KM_ flag to
indicate this call site requirement, then jump through whatever
lockdep hoop is required within the kmem_* allocation wrappers.
e.g, we can ignore the new KM_* flag if we are in a transaction
context and so the flag is only activated in the situations were
we currently enforce an external GFP_NOFS context from the call
site.....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
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:[~2016-06-02 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <94cea603-2782-1c5a-e2df-42db4459a8ce@cn.fujitsu.com>
[not found] ` <20160512055756.GE6648@birch.djwong.org>
[not found] ` <20160512080321.GA18496@dastard>
2016-05-13 16:03 ` Xfs lockdep warning with for-dave-for-4.6 branch Michal Hocko
2016-05-16 10:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-16 13:05 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-16 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-16 23:10 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-17 14:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-17 22:35 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-18 7:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-18 8:25 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-18 9:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-18 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-19 8:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-20 0:17 ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-01 13:17 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-01 18:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-02 14:50 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-02 15:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-02 15:46 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-02 23:22 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2016-06-06 12:20 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-15 7:21 ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-21 14:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-22 1:03 ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-22 12:38 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-22 22:58 ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-23 11:35 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-06 13:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-17 13:49 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-19 0:33 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-19 5:30 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-19 8:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-19 12:06 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-19 21:49 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-20 7:15 ` Michal Hocko
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=20160602232254.GR12670@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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 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).