From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] kernel/lockdep: use BFS(breadth-first search) algorithm to search target
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:30:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d82e647a0905261730k76c0fb32v3c38deb4f17736b2@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1243346374.23657.9.camel@twins>
2009/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>:
> On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 21:54 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Hi,All
>>
>> Currently lockdep uses recursion DFS(depth-first search) algorithm to
>> search target in checking lock circle(check_noncircular()),irq-safe
>> -> irq-unsafe(check_irq_usage()) and irq inversion when adding a new
>> lock dependency. I plan to replace the current DFS with BFS, based on
>> the following consideration:
>>
>> 1,no loss of efficiency, no matter DFS or BFS, the running time
>> are O(V+E) (V is vertex count, and E is edge count of one
>> graph);
>>
>> 2,BFS may be easily implemented by circular queue and consumes
>> much less kernel stack space than DFS for DFS is implemented by
>> recursion, we know kernel stack is very limited, eg. 4KB.
>>
>> 3, The shortest path can be obtained by BFS if the target is
>> found, but can't be got by DFS. By the shortest path, we can
>> shorten the lock dependency chain and help to troubleshoot lock
>> problem easier than before.
Another case, there are several lock_list instances in one lock dependency graph
,which all points to one lock_class, BFS can find the one with
shortest distance,but
DFS can't. The scenario should be common, right?
Thanks.
>>
>> Any suggestions, objections or viewpoint?
>
> Ah, replace the full cycle detection might be worth it, esp with that
> pre-allocated stack you used. Its all serialized on the graph lock
> anyway.
>
> I'm not sure about 3, though, since we search on adding a each new
> dependency we'll only ever have a choice between cycles when one new
> dependency generates two cycles at the same time. Something I think is
> rare.
>
> But yes, it wuold be nice to get rid of the current recursive algorithm
> there.
>
>
--
Lei Ming
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-27 0:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-26 13:54 Ming Lei
2009-05-26 13:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-26 14:36 ` Ming Lei
2009-05-27 0:30 ` Ming Lei [this message]
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=d82e647a0905261730k76c0fb32v3c38deb4f17736b2@mail.gmail.com \
--to=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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®