[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170824061153.GF6772@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:11:53 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 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 Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:47:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Those are fine and are indeed the flush_work() vs work inversion.
>
> The two straight forward annotations are:
>
> flush_work(work) process_one_work(wq, work)
> A(work) A(work)
> R(work) work->func(work);
> R(work)
>
> Which catches:
>
> Task-1: work:
>
> mutex_lock(&A); mutex_lock(&A);
> flush_work(work);
I'm not sure but, with LOCKDEP_COMPLETE enabled, this issue would
automatically be covered w/o additional A(work)/R(work). Right?
A(work)/R(work) seem to be used for preventing wait_for_completion()
in flush_work() from waiting for the completion forever because of the
work using mutex_lock(&A). Am I understanding correctly?
If yes, we can use just LOCKDEP_COMPLETE for that purpose.
> And the analogous:
>
> flush_workqueue(wq) process_one_work(wq, work)
> A(wq) A(wq)
> R(wq) work->func(work);
> (wq)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists