Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-30 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
Hello Peter, On (08/30/17 10:47), Peter Zijlstra wrote: [..] > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it > > harder to find and fix. > > > > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I

RE: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-30 Thread Byungchul Park
m; ax...@kernel.dk; linux- > s...@vger.kernel.org; s...@canb.auug.org.au; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; > kernel-t...@lge.com > Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux- > next: Tree for Aug 22] > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-30 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it > harder to find and fix. > > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I've not yet > checked if crossrelease does too much of that. Aah, we do a

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-30 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:15:11PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hi, > > On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote: > [..] > > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim > > > is irritatingly slow) > > > > To Ingo, > > > > I cannot decide if we have to roll back C

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-29 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
Hi, On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim > > is irritatingly slow) > > To Ingo, > > I cannot decide if we have to roll back CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE > dependency on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING in Kconfig. With them en

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-29 Thread Byungchul Park
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:20:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Byungchul, a quick question. Hello Sergey, > have you measured the performance impact? somehow my linux-next is Yeah, it might have performance impact inevitably. > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-29 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] > > Byungchul, did you add the crosslock checks to lockdep? Can you have a look > > at > > the above report? That report namely doesn't make sense to me. > > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > A work in a worker

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-23 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
Hi, On (08/24/17 12:39), Boqun Feng wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont > > > > buffer immediately. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm.. Not quite fam

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-23 Thread Boqun Feng
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote: > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont > > > buffer immediately. > > > > > > > Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several > > us

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > A work in a worker A task work on exit to user > -- --

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote: > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont > > buffer immediately. > > > > Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several > usages of printk(KERN_CONT "...\n") in kernel. > > Did a bit research myself, and I

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote: [..] > > > printk(KERN_CONT ");\n"); > > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont > > buffer immediately. > > > > Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several > usages of printk(KERN_CONT "...\

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Byungchul Park
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:38:13PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > From: Boqun Feng > Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:12:16 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: Print proper scenario if cross deadlock detected at > acquisition time > > For a potential deadlock about CROSSRELEASE as follow: > > P1

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Boqun Feng
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46:48PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (08/23/17 12:38), Boqun Feng wrote: > [..] > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > index 642fb5362507..a3709e15f609 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Boqun Feng
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46:17PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > Hi Byungchul, > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > On

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (08/23/17 12:38), Boqun Feng wrote: [..] > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > index 642fb5362507..a3709e15f609 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > @@ -1156,6 +1156,23 @@ print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src, >

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Byungchul Park
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Byungchul, > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > > ==

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Boqun Feng
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Byungchul, > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > > ==

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Boqun Feng
Hi Byungchul, On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > == > > > WARNING: possible cir

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Byungchul Park
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:36:49AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote: > [..] > > aha, ok > > > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > > > A work in a worker A task work on exit to user > > --

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] aha, ok > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > A work in a worker A task work on exit to user > -- --- > mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex) >

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Byungchul Park
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > == > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > == > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 Not tainted > ---