[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170822092141.fjmr74xhfid7vu7h@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:21:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
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 05:51:00PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> 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?
Think so, although there's something weird with read locks that I keep
forgetting. But I'm not sure it'll actually solve the problem. But I can
try I suppose.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists