mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

      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®