linux-kernel - Re: Dramatic lockdep slowdown in 4.14

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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:   Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:07:44 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@....com,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Dramatic lockdep slowdown in 4.14

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:03:33AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I had noticed that the BeagleBone Black boot time appeared to have
> increased significantly with 4.14 and yesterday I finally had time to
> investigate it.
> 
> Boot time (from "Linux version" to login prompt) had in fact doubled
> since 4.13 where it took 17 seconds (with my current config) compared to
> the 35 seconds I now see with 4.14-rc4.
> 
> I quick bisect pointed to lockdep and specifically the following commit:
> 
> 	28a903f63ec0 ("locking/lockdep: Handle non(or multi)-acquisition
> 	               of a crosslock")
> 
> which I've verified is the commit which doubled the boot time (compared
> to 28a903f63ec0^) (added by lockdep crossrelease series [1]).
> 
> I also verified that simply disabling CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING on 4.14-rc4
> brought boot time down to about 14 seconds.
> 
> Now since it's lockdep I guess this can't really be considered a
> regression if these changes did improve lockdep correctness, but still,
> this dramatic slow down essentially forces me to disable PROVE_LOCKING
> by default on this system.
> 
> Is this lockdep slowdown expected and desirable?

Expected yes, desirable not so much. Its the save_stack_trace() in
add_xhlock() (IIRC).

I've not yet had time to figure out what to do about that.