MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130505000528.GA25454@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
References: <1367615050-3894-1-git-send-email-ccross@android.com>
	<1367615050-3894-2-git-send-email-ccross@android.com>
	<20130504130440.GC13770@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
	<CAMbhsRScr+3Zk5Bi6390bGRbtE4oh2H-mHrGHS0wew5hdkivUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130504225715.GB24276@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
	<CAMbhsRS_cF7kF-QZ9BMBUS3ytU0ukRCbC3D549HW_XOsQbEZhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130505000528.GA25454@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 17:23:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMbhsRQso4fW_DVL6U3zfbX3YbLsTy8-rUA-fo61Aw93bU+sQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time
From: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> >> >> --- a/kernel/exit.c
>> >> >> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
>> >> >> @@ -835,7 +835,7 @@ void do_exit(long code)
>> >> >>       /*
>> >> >>        * Make sure we are holding no locks:
>> >> >>        */
>> >> >> -     debug_check_no_locks_held(tsk);
>> >> >> +     debug_check_no_locks_held();
>> >> >
>> >> > Is task guaranteed == current?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the first line of do_exit is:
>> >>         struct task_struct *tsk = current;
>> >
>> > Aha, I understand it now.
>> >
>> > Accessing current is slower than local variable. So your "new" code
>> > will work but will be slower. Please revert this part.
>>
>> Using current instead of passing in tsk was done at Andrew Morton's
>> suggestion, and makes no difference from the freezer's perspective
>> since it would have to use current to get the task to pass in, so I'm
>> going to leave it as is.
>
> Well, current is:
>
> static inline struct thread_info *current_thread_info(void)
> {
>         register unsigned long sp asm ("sp");
>         return (struct thread_info *)(sp & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1));
> }
>
> #define get_current() (current_thread_info()->task)
>
> #define current get_current()
>
> Instead of passing computed value to debug_check_no_locks_held(), you
> force it to be computed again. do_exit() performance matters for
> configure scripts, etc.
>
> I'd say it makes sense to keep the optimalization. akpm can correct
> me.

That translates to 3 instructions, with no memory accesses:
c0008350:       e1a0300d        mov     r3, sp
c0008354:       e3c32d7f        bic     r2, r3, #8128   ; 0x1fc0
c0008358:       e3c2203f        bic     r2, r2, #63     ; 0x3f