Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:09:17 -0400 | | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/urgent] fix several lockdep splats, allow multiple splats |
| |
* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 02:12:01PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:16:45PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:33:34 EDT, Mathieu Desnoyers said: > > > > > > > > > I recommend creating a kernel command line parameter that would tweak > > > > > the number of messages printed by lockdep. The default would indeed by 1 > > > > > message, but people in a debugging marathon can specify a larger value > > > > > so they won't have to reboot between each individual lockdep error. > > > > > > > > Yeah, that would rock for development kernels - playing whack-a-mole with > > > > a half-dozen new lockdep whinges can easily stretch out for quite some time. > > > > > > The RCU-lockdep splats are a bit different in nature than the > > > deadlock-related splats that lockdep normally prints. The RCU-lockdep > > > splats are transient in nature, and it is easy to apply WARN_ON_ONCE(). > > > In contrast, if you permit multiple deadlock-related lockdep splats, > > > you tend to get lots of warnings about the same deadlock cycle. > > > > > > So how about an additional kernel configuration variable, default > > > disabled, perhaps named CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_MULTIPLE, that allows a > > > single boot to see multiple messages? Unlike the dyntick-idle > > > WARN_ON()s that generated multi-gigabyte console logs in a great > > > hurry, I haven't yet seen excessive quantities of RCU-lockdep splats, > > > so I don't see the need for an integer limit. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Ideally we don't want to flood the console with thousands of instances > > of the same RCU-lockdep splat (think of a missing read lock on a common > > code path). Therefore I think keeping an integer limit is relevant here. > > I agree that this integer limit could be selected by a CONFIG_ option > > rather than by a kernel parameter, as it will typically only be used on > > development kernels with "kernel hacking" enabled anyway. There is not > > much point in bloating the kernel code with an extra debug-only kernel > > parameter parsing. > > We already limit via WARN_ON_ONCE(), and there are fewer than 500 lines > of code in the kernel that can give RCU lockdep splats, so I really believe > that we are OK without an overall limit for the foreseeable future.
Your idea makes sense then.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> > Thanx, Paul
-- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
|  |