From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752578AbdB1NgA (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:36:00 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:58956 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751821AbdB1Nf5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:35:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:35:21 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Byungchul Park Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, kirill@shutemov.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com, kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Message-ID: <20170228133521.GJ5680@worktop> References: <1484745459-2055-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1484745459-2055-7-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170228130513.GH5680@worktop> <20170228132820.GH3817@X58A-UD3R> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170228132820.GH3817@X58A-UD3R> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:28:20PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 02:05:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:17:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > +#define MAX_XHLOCKS_NR 64UL > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE > > > + if (tsk->xhlocks) { > > > + void *tmp = tsk->xhlocks; > > > + /* Disable crossrelease for current */ > > > + tsk->xhlocks = NULL; > > > + vfree(tmp); > > > + } > > > +#endif > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE > > > + p->xhlock_idx = 0; > > > + p->xhlock_idx_soft = 0; > > > + p->xhlock_idx_hard = 0; > > > + p->xhlock_idx_nmi = 0; > > > + p->xhlocks = vzalloc(sizeof(struct hist_lock) * MAX_XHLOCKS_NR); > > > > I don't think we need vmalloc for this now. > > Really? When is a better time to do it? > > I think the time creating a task is the best time to initialize it. No? The place is fine, but I would use kmalloc() now (and subsequently kfree on the other end) for the allocation. Its not _that_ large anymore, right?