[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170830062347.GI32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:23:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, johannes.berg@...el.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:53:39AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:49:26AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
> > >
> > > I think it must be distinguished with what it actually waits for, e.i.
> > > completion
> > > variables instead of work or wq. I will make it next week and let you know.
> >
> > So no. The existing annotations are strictly better than relying on
> > cross-release.
>
> Thank you for exaplanation but, as I already said, this is why I said
> "I don't think it's the same level currently. But, I can make it with
> some modification." to TJ:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1479560.html
>
> And also I mentioned we might need the current code inevitably but, the
> existing annotations are never good and why here:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1480173.html
I can read the words, but have no idea what you're trying to say.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists