[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100331112559.GA17747@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:25:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to
destroy_workqueue()
On 03/31, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>
> This fixes a lockdep warning when invoking destroy_workqueue(),
> because the lockdep annotations are invoked under cpu_add_remove_lock.
Confused. Why does lockdep complains?
> So, move the lockdep annotations before taking cpu_add_remove_lock
> in destroy_workqueue(), this will not affect the original purpose
> of adding them for destroy_workqueue() etc.
>
> However, it will affect another caller of cleanup_workqueue_thread(),
> that is, workqueue_cpu_callback(). This should be fine, because there
> are no other cases than cpu hotplug could call it.
OK, but nobody should take cpu_maps_update_begin() under wq->lockdep_map,
in particular work->func() must not.
I must have missed something, but it seems to me this patch tries to
supress the valid warning.
Could you please clarify?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists