[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220304032002.GD6112@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:20:02 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.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
Subject: Re: Report 2 in ext4 and journal based on v5.17-rc1
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:36:25AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 02:23:33PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > I totally agree with you. *They aren't really locks but it's just waits
> > and wakeups.* That's exactly why I decided to develop Dept. Dept is not
> > interested in locks unlike Lockdep, but fouces on waits and wakeup
> > sources itself. I think you get Dept wrong a lot. Please ask me more if
> > you have things you doubt about Dept.
>
> So the question is this --- do you now understand why, even though
> there is a circular dependency, nothing gets stalled in the
> interactions between the two wait channels?
I found a point that the two wait channels don't lead a deadlock in
some cases thanks to Jan Kara. I will fix it so that Dept won't
complain it.
Thanks,
Byungchul
>
> - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists