On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:47:18AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 04:41:45PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > cross-release ftl > > > > From Chris: > > > > "Fwiw, this isn't cross-release but us reloading the module many times, > > creating a whole host of new lockclasses. Even more fun is when the > > module gets a slightly different address and the new lock address hashes > > into an old lock... > > Yeah, this is a known issue, just reboot. > > > "I did think about a module-hook to revoke the stale lockclasses, but > > that still leaves all the hashed chains. > > Its an absolute royal pain to remove all the resources consumed by a > module, and if you manage you then have to deal with fragmented storage > -- that is, we need to go keep track of which entries are used. > > Its a giant heap of complexity that's just not worth it. > > > Given all that, I don't see why we should up this. Just don't reload > modules (or better, don't use modules at all). We use excessive amounts of module reloading to validate the failure paths of driver load. Rebooting takes too much time. I guess we could look into just rebinding the driver without reloading, that should take the pain off lockdep. Meanwhile we can carry this locally. I just included this to check whether you have any plans, thanks for clarifying that this is not worth it from a core perspective to get fixed. The real issue we have in CI is the one the first patch papers over. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
