Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190424101934.51535-1-duyuyang@gmail.com> <20190424101934.51535-20-duyuyang@gmail.com>
 <20190425193247.GU12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190425193247.GU12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:57:37 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHttsrY4jK2cayBE8zNCSJKDAkzLiBb40GVfQHpJi2YK1nEZaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/28] locking/lockdep: Optimize irq usage check when
 marking lock usage bit
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     will.deacon@arm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, ming.lei@redhat.com,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for review.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 03:32, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:19:25PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
>
> After only a quick read of these next patches; this is the one that
> worries me most.
>
> You did mention Frederic's patches, but I'm not entirely sure you're
> aware why he's doing them. He's preparing to split the softirq state
> into one state per softirq vector.
>
> See here:
>
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190228171242.32144-14-frederic@kernel.org
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190228171242.32144-15-frederic@kernel.org
>
> IOW he's going to massively explode this storage.

If I understand correctly, he is not going to.

First of all, we can divide the whole usage thing into tracking and checking.

Frederic's fine-grained soft vector state is applied to usage
tracking, i.e., which specific vectors a lock is used or enabled.

But for usage checking, which vectors are does not really matter. So,
the current size of the arrays and bitmaps are good enough. Right?