From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751111AbdK3Hr2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:47:28 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:33266 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750783AbdK3Hr0 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:47:26 -0500
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:47:18 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
        Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@intel.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: Up MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS
Message-ID: <20171130074718.hzed67wrwjtv4byu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20171129154145.26755-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20171129154145.26755-3-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171129154145.26755-3-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 04:41:45PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> cross-release ftl
> 
> From Chris:
> 
> "Fwiw, this isn't cross-release but us reloading the module many times,
> creating a whole host of new lockclasses. Even more fun is when the
> module gets a slightly different address and the new lock address hashes
> into an old lock...

Yeah, this is a known issue, just reboot.

> "I did think about a module-hook to revoke the stale lockclasses, but
> that still leaves all the hashed chains.

Its an absolute royal pain to remove all the resources consumed by a
module, and if you manage you then have to deal with fragmented storage
-- that is, we need to go keep track of which entries are used.

Its a giant heap of complexity that's just not worth it.


Given all that, I don't see why we should up this. Just don't reload
modules (or better, don't use modules at all).