From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>,
RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:NVM EXPRESS DRIVER" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [bug report] WARNING: possible circular locking at: rdma_destroy_id+0x17/0x20 [rdma_cm] triggered by blktests nvmeof-mp/002
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 09:45:56 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220601124556.GI2960187@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <355f1926-9a0d-f65e-d604-6b452fa987e9@acm.org>
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 5/31/22 05:35, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 09:00:16PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 5/27/22 14:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > That only works if you can detect actual different lock classes during
> > > > lock creation. It doesn't seem applicable in this case.
> > >
> > > Why doesn't it seem applicable in this case? The default behavior of
> > > mutex_init() and related initialization functions is to create one lock
> > > class per synchronization object initialization caller.
> > > lockdep_register_key() can be used to create one lock class per
> > > synchronization object instance. I introduced lockdep_register_key() myself
> > > a few years ago.
> >
> > I don't think this should be used to create one key per instance of
> > the object which would be required here. The overhead would be very
> > high.
>
> Are we perhaps referring to different code changes? I'm referring to the
> code change below. The runtime and memory overhead of the patch below
> should be minimal.
This is not minimal, the lockdep graph will expand now with a node per
created CM ID ever created and with all the additional locking
arcs. This is an expensive operation.
AFIAK keys should not be created per-object like this but based on
object classes known when the object is created - eg a CM listening ID
vs a connceting ID as an example
This might be a suitable hack if the # of objects was small???
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-01 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-04 3:04 [bug report] WARNING: possible circular locking at: rdma_destroy_id+0x17/0x20 [rdma_cm] triggered by blktests nvmeof-mp/002 Yi Zhang
2022-02-27 23:21 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-05-25 3:40 ` yangx.jy
2022-05-25 11:01 ` Sagi Grimberg
2022-05-25 18:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-05-27 12:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-05-28 19:00 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-05-31 12:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-05-31 17:55 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-06-01 12:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2022-06-01 16:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-06-01 17:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-06-03 5:13 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-06-06 16:21 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-08-23 7:29 ` yangx.jy
2022-08-25 5:59 ` yangx.jy
2022-08-25 6:26 ` Guoqing Jiang
2022-08-26 10:03 ` yangx.jy
2022-08-26 11:32 ` Guoqing Jiang
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=20220601124556.GI2960187@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=yi.zhang@redhat.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