Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:33:03 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from
 lockdep/lock_stat (v1)
Message-ID: <YgTbz55YtOQbnA3m@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220208184208.79303-1-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20220209090908.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <24fe6a08-5931-8e8d-8d77-459388c4654e@redhat.com>
 <919214156.50301.1644431371345.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <69e5f778-8715-4acf-c027-58b6ec4a9e77@redhat.com>
 <CAM9d7ci=N2NVj57k=W0ebqBzfW+ThBqYSrx-CZbgwGcbOSrEGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <718973621.50447.1644434890744.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <CAM9d7cj=tj6pA48q_wkQOGn-2vUc9FRj63bMBOm5R7OukmMbTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f8b7760f-16a2-6ada-de88-9e21a7e8fef9@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f8b7760f-16a2-6ada-de88-9e21a7e8fef9@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 03:17:38PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> 
> On 2/9/22 14:45, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:28 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> > > ----- On Feb 9, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Namhyung Kim namhyung@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > I'm also concerning dynamic allocated locks in a data structure.
> > > > If we keep the info in a hash table, we should delete it when the
> > > > lock is gone.  I'm not sure we have a good place to hook it up all.
> > > I was wondering about this use case as well. Can we make it mandatory to
> > > declare the lock "class" (including the name) statically, even though the
> > > lock per-se is allocated dynamically ? Then the initialization of the lock
> > > embedded within the data structure would simply refer to the lock class
> > > definition.
> > Isn't it still the same if we have static lock classes that the entry needs
> > to be deleted from the hash table when it frees the data structure?
> > I'm more concerned about free than alloc as there seems to be no
> > API to track that in a place.
> 
> We may have to invent some new APIs to do that. For example,
> spin_lock_exit() can be the counterpart of spin_lock_init() and so on. Of
> course, existing kernel code have to be modified to designate the point
> after which a lock is no longer being used or is freed.

The canonical name is _destroy(). We even have mutex_destroy() except
it's usage isn't mandatory.

The easy way out is doing as lockdep does and hook into the memory
allocators and check every free'd hunk of memory for a lock. It does
hoever mean your data structure of choice needs to be able to answer: do
I have an entry in @range. Which mostly disqualifies a hash-table.

Still, I really don't think you need any of this, it's just bloat. A
very limited stack unwind for one of the two tracepoints should allow
you to find the offending lock just fine.