[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: About the try to remove cross-release feature entirely by Ingo
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Byungchul Park
<> wrote:
> Lockdep works, based on the following:
> (1) Classifying locks properly
> (2) Checking relationship between the classes
> If (1) is not good or (2) is not good, then we
> might get false positives.
> For (1), we don't have to classify locks 100%
> properly but need as enough as lockdep works.
> For (2), we should have a mechanism w/o
> logical defects.
> Cross-release added an additional capacity to
> (2) and requires (1) to get more precisely classified.
> Since the current classification level is too low for
> cross-release to work, false positives are being
> reported frequently with enabling cross-release.
> Yes. It's a obvious problem. It needs to be off by
> default until the classification is done by the level
> that cross-release requires.
> But, the logic (2) is valid and logically true. Please
> keep the code, mechanism, and logic.

In addition, I want to say that the current level of
classification is much less than 100% but, since we
have annotated well to suppress wrong reports by
rough classifications, finally it does not come into
view by original lockdep for now.

But since cross-release makes the dependency
graph more fine-grained, it easily comes into view.

Even w/o cross-release, it can happen by adding
additional dependencies connecting two roughly
classified lock classes in the future.

Furthermore, I can see many places in kernel to
consider wait_for_completion() using manual
lock_acquire()/lock_release() and the rate using it

In other words, even without cross-release, the
more we add manual annotations for
wait_for_completion() the more we definitely
suffer same problems someday, we are facing now
through cross-release.

Therefore, I want to say the fundamental problem
comes from classification, not cross-release
specific. Of course, since cross-release accelerates
the condition, I agree with it to be off for now.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-13 08:14    [W:0.186 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site