lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] lockdep: Implement bitlock map allocator
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:29:25PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:53:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:24:44AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:59:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:55:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +struct bitlock_map {
> > > > > + struct hlist_node hash_entry;
> > > > > + unsigned long bitaddr; /* ID */
> > > > > + struct lockdep_map map;
> > > > > + int ref; /* reference count */
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > So this is effectively bigger than just adding a struct lockdep_map into
> > > > whatever structure holds the bit spinlock to begin with.
> > > >
> > > > What is the gain?
> > >
> > > 1. I don't want to make being aware of lockdep essential to user of
> > > bit-base lock, like spin lock, mutex, semaphore ans so on. In other
> > > words, I want to make it work transparently.
> >
> > I want to discourage the use of bitlocks, they stink.
>
> I agree it has some problems. But someone who are sensive to memory
> consumption still need to use bit-based lock. Right?
>
> I can stop this proposal because it's meaningless if bit-based lock can be
> removed entirely since any requirement for bit-based lock does not exist
> at all. But IMHO, it's worthy if the requirement be.
>
> > bitlocks must by their constraint be a test-and-set lock, with all the
> > known problems those have. It also means they're a royal pain for -rt.
>
> I also think it's better to use rather spinlock in most cases unless memory
> consumption is critical problem. But in the case memory consumption is
> critical... what can we do?

So RT is already patching a whole bunch of bit-spinlocks into proper
spinlocks, I would much rather we do that and get lockdep coverage that
way.

That is, have the bit-spinlock for 'normal' kernels and use the proper
spinlock for LOCKDEP || PREEMPT_RT kernels.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-13 23:01    [W:0.076 / U:1.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site