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

[Byungchul Park]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:48 PM
> To: Sergey Senozhatsky
> Cc: Byungchul Park; Bart Van Assche; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx; axboe@xxxxxxxxx; linux-
> scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> kernel-team@xxxxxxx
> 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 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 an unconditional stack unwind for every __lock_acquire() now.
> It keeps a trace in the xhlocks[].

Yeah.. I also think this is most significant..

> 
> Does the below cure most of that overhead?
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 44c8d0d17170..7b872036b72e 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -4872,7 +4872,7 @@ static void add_xhlock(struct held_lock *hlock)
>  	xhlock->trace.max_entries = MAX_XHLOCK_TRACE_ENTRIES;
>  	xhlock->trace.entries = xhlock->trace_entries;
>  	xhlock->trace.skip = 3;
> -	save_stack_trace(&xhlock->trace);
> +	/* save_stack_trace(&xhlock->trace); */
>  }
> 
>  static inline int same_context_xhlock(struct hist_lock *xhlock)