From: "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: "Yuyang Du" <duyuyang@gmail.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Bart Van Assche" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
ming.lei@redhat.com, "Frederic Weisbecker" <frederic@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/28] locking/lockdep: Remove !dir in lock irq usage check
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 03:25:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b05c7236-1ce9-4a7e-b2bf-84ec4061b4ed@www.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHttsrbf30jTT3XidoeWV7j2xovCvJuM3=qy4u1z_GC3dXYp8A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Yuyang Du wrote:
> Thanks for review.
>
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 04:03, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:19:30PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > > In mark_lock_irq(), the following checks are performed:
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > | -> | unsafe | read unsafe |
> > > |----------------------------------|
> > > | safe | F B | F* B* |
> > > |----------------------------------|
> > > | read safe | F? B* | - |
> > > ----------------------------------
> > >
> > > Where:
> > > F: check_usage_forwards
> > > B: check_usage_backwards
> > > *: check enabled by STRICT_READ_CHECKS
> > > ?: check enabled by the !dir condition
> > >
> > > From checking point of view, the special F? case does not make sense,
> > > whereas it perhaps is made for peroformance concern. As later patch will
> > > address this issue, remove this exception, which makes the checks
> > > consistent later.
> > >
> > > With STRICT_READ_CHECKS = 1 which is default, there is no functional
> > > change.
> >
> > Oh man.. thinking required and it is way late.. anyway this whole read
> > stuff made me remember we had a patch set on readlocks last year.
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180411135110.9217-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com
> >
> > I remember reviewing that a few times and then it dropped on the floor,
> > probably because Spectre crap or something sucked up all my time again :/
> >
> > Sorry Boqun!
>
That's all right. I was also too busy to send another spin...
> Oh man, I thought about the read-write lock stuff, but I didn't know
> Boqun's patch. Let me hurt my brain looking at that patch.
>
Yuyang, a few about the status, I've changed a little on the algorithm, the
latest code is at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/boqun/linux.git arr-rfc-wip
but unfortunately, I haven't got time to rework the comments and documents, so
be aware of this inconsistency.
Feel free to ask me any question, and I will try to send out a fresh spin in next month.
Regards,
Boqun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-26 7:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-24 10:19 [PATCH 00/28] Optimize IRQ usage checks and other small bits Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 01/28] locking/lockdep: Change all print_*() return type to void Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 02/28] locking/lockdep: Add description and explanation in lockdep design doc Yuyang Du
2019-04-25 14:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 5:41 ` Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 03/28] locking/lockdep: Adjust lock usage bit character checks Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 04/28] locking/lockdep: Remove useless conditional macro Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 05/28] locking/lockdep: Print the right depth for chain key colission Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 06/28] locking/lockdep: Update obsolete struct field description Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 07/28] locking/lockdep: Use lockdep_init_task for task initiation consistently Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 08/28] locking/lockdep: Define INITIAL_CHAIN_KEY for chain keys to start with Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 09/28] locking/lockdep: Change the range of class_idx in held_lock struct Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 10/28] locking/lockdep: Remove unused argument in validate_chain() and check_deadlock() Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 11/28] locking/lockdep: Update comment Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 12/28] locking/lockdep: Change type of the element field in circular_queue Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 13/28] locking/lockdep: Change the return type of __cq_dequeue() Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 14/28] locking/lockdep: Avoid constant checks in __bfs by using offset reference Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 15/28] locking/lockdep: Update comments on dependency search Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 16/28] locking/lockdep: Add explanation to lock usage rules in lockdep design doc Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 17/28] locking/lockdep: Remove redundant argument in check_deadlock Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 18/28] locking/lockdep: Remove unused argument in __lock_release Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 19/28] locking/lockdep: Optimize irq usage check when marking lock usage bit Yuyang Du
2019-04-25 19:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 6:57 ` Yuyang Du
2019-04-30 12:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-06 3:05 ` Yuyang Du
2019-05-06 3:42 ` Yuyang Du
2019-05-07 1:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-05-07 2:21 ` Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 20/28] locking/lockdep: Refactorize check_noncircular and check_redundant Yuyang Du
2019-04-25 19:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 6:48 ` Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 21/28] locking/lockdep: Consolidate lock usage bit initialization Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 22/28] locking/lockdep: Adjust new bit cases in mark_lock Yuyang Du
2019-04-25 19:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 6:47 ` Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 23/28] locking/lockdep: Update irqsafe lock bitmaps Yuyang Du
2019-04-25 19:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 6:45 ` Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 24/28] locking/lockdep: Remove !dir in lock irq usage check Yuyang Du
2019-04-25 20:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 7:06 ` Yuyang Du
2019-04-26 7:25 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2019-04-30 15:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 25/28] locking/lockdep: Implement new IRQ usage checking algorithm Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 26/28] locking/lockdep: Remove __bfs Yuyang Du
2019-04-25 20:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 6:35 ` Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 27/28] locking/lockdep: Remove locks_before Yuyang Du
2019-04-24 10:19 ` [PATCH 28/28] locking/lockdep: Reduce lock_list_entries by half Yuyang Du
2019-04-25 18:56 ` [PATCH 00/28] Optimize IRQ usage checks and other small bits Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 6:59 ` Yuyang Du
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b05c7236-1ce9-4a7e-b2bf-84ec4061b4ed@www.fastmail.com \
--to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=duyuyang@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®