[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170822085100.GH20323@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:51:00 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@....com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all
part of PROVE_LOCKING
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> That wouldn't work. That annotation is to help find deadlocks like:
>
>
> mutex_lock(&A)
> <work>
> mutex_lock(&A)
>
> flush_work(&work)
>
I meant:
mutex_lock(&A)
<work>
lockdep_map_acquire_read(&work)
mutex_lock(&A)
lockdep_map_acquire(&work)
flush_work(&work)
I mean it can still be detected with a read acquisition in work.
Am I wrong?
> The 'fake' lock connects the lock chain inside the work to the
> lock-chain at flush_work() and thus detects these. That's perfectly
> fine.
>
> It just seems to confuse the completions stuff... Let me go read Dave's
> email and see if I can come up with something.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists