[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whpkWbdeZE1zask8YPzVYevJU2xOXqOposBujxZsa2-tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:00:52 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
duyuyang@...il.com, johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org,
tytso@....edu, willy@...radead.org, david@...morbit.com,
amir73il@...il.com, 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, jlayton@...nel.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com,
melissa.srw@...il.com, hamohammed.sa@...il.com,
42.hyeyoo@...il.com, chris.p.wilson@...el.com,
gwan-gyeong.mun@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 00/23] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)
[ Back from travel, so trying to make sense of this series.. ]
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 7:33 PM Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
>
> I've been developing a tool for detecting deadlock possibilities by
> tracking wait/event rather than lock(?) acquisition order to try to
> cover all synchonization machanisms. It's done on v6.2-rc2.
Ugh. I hate how this adds random patterns like
if (timeout == MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT)
sdt_might_sleep_strong(NULL);
else
sdt_might_sleep_strong_timeout(NULL);
...
sdt_might_sleep_finish();
to various places, it seems so very odd and unmaintainable.
I also recall this giving a fair amount of false positives, are they all fixed?
Anyway, I'd really like the lockdep people to comment and be involved.
We did have a fairly recent case of "lockdep doesn't track page lock
dependencies because it fundamentally cannot" issue, so DEPT might fix
those kinds of missing dependency analysis. See
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000060d41f05f139aa44@google.com/
for some context to that one, but at teh same time I would *really*
want the lockdep people more involved and acking this work.
Maybe I missed the email where you reported on things DEPT has found
(and on the lack of false positives)?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists