[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANrsvRPEypwLDwY1onFSAi6W2pF=L=fZmi6tmgrpv67+0jrHqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 01:12:31 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, david@...morbit.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, oleg@...hat.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:46:38PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
>> How does a maintainer choose a very work-around method and avoid
>> problems rather than fix a root cause? I am very disappointed.
>
> Time.. we need this sorted before we push the whole lot to Linus in the
> next window. Fixing the recursive-read thing is far more work (although
> Boqun did post some patches for that, which I still have to look at).
As I said, it's not a problem of whether read-acquire should be used or not, of
course I thought so, for the first time. But now I see what problems are, as I
already answered to TJ. The work which makes read-acquire work well is
worth itself. But, problems we should focus on now is that manual acquire(work,
wq) should be replaced with others or removed.
--
Thanks,
Byungchul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists