Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 21:32:15 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
        chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@...il.com,
        johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com, bfields@...ldses.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-team@....com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com, dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
        penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        ngupta@...are.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        paolo.valente@...aro.org, josef@...icpanda.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        jack@...e.cz, jack@...e.com, jlayton@...nel.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, airlied@...ux.ie,
        rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com, melissa.srw@...il.com,
        hamohammed.sa@...il.com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 00/21] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 09:32:13AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Yes, right. DEPT has never been optimized. It rather turns on
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP and even CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING when CONFIG_DEPT gets on
> because of porting issue. I have no choice but to rely on those to
> develop DEPT out of tree. Of course, that's what I don't like.

Sure, but blaming the overhead on unnecessary CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
overhead can explain only a tiny fraction of the slowdown.  Consider:
if time to first test (time to boot the kernel, setup the test
environment, figure out which tests to run, etc.) is 12 seconds w/o
LOCKDEP, 49 seconds with LOCKDEP/PROVE_LOCKING and 602 seconds with
DEPT, you can really only blame 37 seconds out of the 602 seconds of
DEPT on unnecessary PROVE_LOCKING overhead.

So let's assume we can get rid of all of the PROVE_LOCKING overhead.
We're still talking about 12 seconds for time-to-first test without
any lock debugging, versus ** 565 ** seconds for time-to-first test
with DEPT.  That's a factor of 47x for DEPT sans LOCKDEP overhead,
compared to a 4x overhead for PROVE_LOCKING.

> Plus, for now, I'm focusing on removing false positives. Once it's
> considered settled down, I will work on performance optimizaition. But
> it should still keep relying on Lockdep CONFIGs and adding additional
> overhead on it until DEPT can be developed in the tree.

Well, please take a look at the false positive which I reported.  I
suspect that in order to fix that particular false positive, we'll
either need to have a way to disable DEPT on waiting on all page/folio
dirty bits, or it will need to treat pages from different inodes
and/or address spaces as being entirely separate classes, instead of
collapsing all inode dirty bits, and all of various inode's mutexes
(such as ext4's i_data_sem) as being part of a single object class.

> DEPT is tracking way more objects than Lockdep so it's inevitable to be
> slower, but let me try to make it have the similar performance to
> Lockdep.

In order to eliminate some of these false positives, I suspect it's
going to increase the number of object classes that DEPT will need to
track even *more*.  At which point, the cost/benefit of DEPT may get
called into question, especially if all of the false positives can't
be suppressed.

					- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists