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> <CAHttsrY4jK2cayBE8zNCSJKDAkzLiBb40GVfQHpJi2YK1nEZaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190430121148.GV2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAHttsrYfCdpNwQ81ppFQ9b_57tuLYOb=xi=CbRBysnB+LgjGGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHttsrYfCdpNwQ81ppFQ9b_57tuLYOb=xi=CbRBysnB+LgjGGg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 11:42:05 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHttsrZKx0cgs6t9ahxmV7ENp6QWG4H9N7KMvsgrucQ_rsqTJQ@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

On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 11:05, Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 20:12, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Frederic? My understanding was that he really was going to split the
> > whole thing. The moment you allow masking individual soft vectors, you
> > get per-vector dependency chains.
>
> It seems so. What I understand is: for IRQ usage, the difference is:
>
> Each lock has a new usage mask:
>
>         softirq10, ..., softirq1, hardirq
>
> where softirq1 | softirq2 | ... | softirq10 = softirq
>
> where softirq, exactly what was, virtually is used in the checking.
> This is mainly because, any irq vector has any usage, the lock has
> that usage, be it hard or soft.
>
> If that is right, hardirq can be split too (why not if softirq does
> :)). So, maybe a bitmap to do them all for tracking, and optionally
> maintain aggregate softirq and hardirq for checking as before.
> Regardless, may irq-safe reachability thing is not affected.
>
> And for the chain, which is mainly for caching does not really matter
> split or not (either way, the outcome will be the same?), because
> there will be a hash for a chain anyway, which is the same. Right?

Oh, another look at the patch, I was wrong, it can be very different
if consider: used in vector X vs. enabled on vector Y (which is ok),
when enablement can be so fine-grained as well, which is actually the
point of the patch, though no difference for now :(