From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965078AbdJRFbg (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:31:36 -0400 Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:48794 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965054AbdJRFbf (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:31:35 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.151 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:31:24 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Ingo Molnar Cc: johan@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com, tony@atomide.com, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [tip:locking/urgent] locking/lockdep: Disable cross-release features for now Message-ID: <20171018053124.GB32368@X58A-UD3R> References: <20171014072659.f2yr6mhm5ha3eou7@gmail.com> <20171016020447.GP3323@X58A-UD3R> <20171017071202.6x22ho2o5yz74dak@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171017071202.6x22ho2o5yz74dak@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:12:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug > > > index 2689b7c..e270584 100644 > > > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > > > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > > > @@ -1092,8 +1092,8 @@ config PROVE_LOCKING > > > select DEBUG_MUTEXES > > > select DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES if RT_MUTEXES > > > select DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC > > > - select LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE > > > - select LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS > > > + select LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE if BROKEN > > > + select LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS if BROKEN > > > > I agree with disabling crossrelease as default, becasue of regression, > > as I originally did. > > > > However, it's expected to spend more time once it's enabled. Is the > > following acceptable? > > No, please fix performance. OK. I will fx the performance problem by making the unwinding optional.