RE: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Byungchul Park
2017-08-30T08:53:23Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@infradead.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:48 PM
> To: Sergey Senozhatsky
> Cc: Byungchul Park; Bart Van Assche; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> block@vger.kernel.org; martin.petersen@oracle.com; axboe@kernel.dk; linux-
> scsi@vger.kernel.org; sfr@canb.auug.org.au; linux-next@vger.kernel.org;
> kernel-team@lge.com
> Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-
> next: Tree for Aug 22]
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it
> > harder to find and fix.
> >
> > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I've not yet
> > checked if crossrelease does too much of that.
>
> Aah, we do an unconditional stack unwind for every __lock_acquire() now.
> It keeps a trace in the xhlocks[].

Yeah.. I also think this is most significant..

>
> Does the below cure most of that overhead?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 44c8d0d17170..7b872036b72e 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -4872,7 +4872,7 @@ static void add_xhlock(struct held_lock *hlock)
> xhlock->trace.max_entries = MAX_XHLOCK_TRACE_ENTRIES;
> xhlock->trace.entries = xhlock->trace_entries;
> xhlock->trace.skip = 3;
> - save_stack_trace(&xhlock->trace);
> + /* save_stack_trace(&xhlock->trace); */
> }
>
> static inline int same_context_xhlock(struct hist_lock *xhlock)