lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:15:11 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <>
To:     Byungchul Park <>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <>,
        Bart Van Assche <>,,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next:
 Tree for Aug 22]


On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote:
> > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim
> > is irritatingly slow)
> To Ingo,
> I cannot decide if we have to roll back CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
> dependency on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING in Kconfig. With them enabled,
> lockdep detection becomes strong but has performance impact. But,
> it's anyway a debug option so IMHO we don't have to take case of the
> performance impact. Please let me know your decision.

well, I expected it :)

I've been running lockdep enabled kernels for years, and was OK with
the performance. but now it's just too much and I'm looking at disabling

a more relevant test -- compilation of a relatively small project


   real    1m23.722s                      real    2m9.969s
   user    4m11.300s                      user    4m15.458s
   sys     0m49.386s                      sys     2m3.594s

you don't want to know how much time now it takes to recompile the
kernel ;)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists