From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753582AbdBPIuL (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 03:50:11 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:63072 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752961AbdBPIuK (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 03:50:10 -0500 Message-ID: <1487235000.5258.48.camel@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [RT] lockdep munching nr_list_entries like popcorn From: Mike Galbraith To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: RT , LKML , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:50:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1487224986.5258.45.camel@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:XLtpv+5FFgBa+Vn5+iIJxYfYylMI1MZNu42LGHEEpWSWrwaQwT8 eI2vgtMPEL7rkA7heJRk8uZqJBUb0oEsQPRuQYylTz4NEtEPE8L6xUq12DbvITrZ/CuuSm+ Rgoc/p7NaYaQxCT+CxIj4kDJ/2Am+zCfx3EWHRaYjEH8xB8tkEV9byxioon1mv5dEmombj6 H9eCfaxB5P7P9wYwVS74w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:QOxxxQS0x+Y=:3PCq52QaeAv2gvoQyQnZBu gpoN/usLGexwwDfxyhu2rjs0r9SQU7k8KTQEHVMdEgMzev1AooO/p2tXO5R3jskusqlSG6A86 FYtMIQ+DeR+EMiGuo3ViL/UryiP0zB8poXuVan9ygQ0ASZzK3g91mkfaL/MZ9wcxX0VU3YOe0 zhmPQDCbvlmcfLwUl5yMA+6v4iOReAuwStEdfHb5MFY49niYypENFgxIlkZl6WOS8nN8T2nnS OQ/ga+7tcmq5yUuLYqV7+FKWS7OOqs7ocVZd2XCYpPEKEOALrXBE132vipBeufQLuYYzVUXUC KUERt2GTK0hLnKcMV0/O2YDzQq/xH3qQ6UdBWF5kC16RF77Zxnl2AncKaM3zIOiD4qwq6TkMB LkZibw0rOax7P/A29ZexHLfAaWVErOb0cmvH9wfL2QTLrmeWJNXJST0HAU+xJR+V9Kh2b0bFS T0J2ckG8Sfak44bLERVdjhPb+0BfFKQM1llCOnrs09M0OTtQbgpHI/xsE9ggrP50Cl02jPatx eNGgB/x6P2sSQGDg/4RIKBwZAitex4SmtvGREucurs596QUFYHTzHHTFDAUHKiyBwK6M2SEEz 7bzKqSvtxRXgRpHmW1y0MZNDpx3GqnJl71vt4STI6tPq7Z0croMN/F+2u7esTIMK+Jw4f0YSv jmEbsAL9dwFuXbq79Fftfj+PT74/PLj5uiBUJddwf7zEySqzctLrix+ZNpQq5R98uwObM2X93 P7sLHKEUF857TImPhTBBBuENFo/oK0An+0c8DVFfE5R7VFHzVs5TUZB7KK5TvhTOBNELGgW89 CPEKPEH Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:37 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote: > ... > > swapvec_lock? Oodles of 'em? Nope. > > Well, it's a per cpu lock and the lru_cache_add() variants might be called > from a gazillion of different call chains, but yes, it does not make a lot > of sense. We'll have a look. Adding explicit local_irq_lock_init() makes things heaps better, so presumably we need better lockdep-foo in DEFINE_LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK(). -Mike