[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170207084553.GW6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:45:53 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] locking/spinlock_debug: Change it to a mostly
fair lock
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:15:26AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> v2->v3:
> - Keep the original v1 patches but move patch 3 of v2 in front so
> as to disable GENERIC_LOCKBREAK when DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is on.
>
> v1->v2:
> - Pack lockup and break_lock into a single 4-byte slot so as not
> to in increase spinlock size when GENERIC_LOCKBREAK is
> on. Hopefully that will be enough to fix a frame size too large
> warning in 0-day build.
> - Add a new patch to disable GENERIC_LOCKBREAK when DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> is on.
>
> The current debug spinlock implementation is a TATAS unfair lock. This
> can occasionally lead to system lockup with a debug kernel because
> of the unfairness of the lock rather than inherent locking problem.
>
> This patch set changes the debug spinlock implementation to a
> mostly fair spinlock based on the MCS lock similar to what is done
> in qspinlock. It also includes a patch that disable GENERIC_LOCKBREAK
> when DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is on.
An alternative is to just delete the thing entirely..
Ingo, much of what this thing does seems to be superseded by both
lockdep and a reliable NMI watchdog. Is there still value in
spinlock_debug?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists