linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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: 19+ 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  8:49         ` 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

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 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).