[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170901020512.GK3240@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:05:12 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
david@...morbit.com, johannes@...solutions.net, oleg@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:34:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 05:15:01PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > It's not important. Ok, check the following, instead:
> >
> > context X context Y
> > --------- ---------
> > wait_for_completion(C)
> > acquire(A)
> > release(A)
> > process_one_work()
> > acquire(B)
> > release(B)
> > work->fn()
> > complete(C)
> >
> > We don't need to lose C->A and C->B dependencies unnecessarily.
>
> I really can't be arsed about them. Its really only the first few works
> that will retain that dependency anyway, even if you were to retain
> them.
Wrong.
Every 'work' doing complete() for different classes of completion
variable suffers from losing valuable dependencies, every time, not
first few ones.
Remind we are talking about dependencies wrt cross-lock, not between
_holding_ locks. If you invalidate xhlock whenever work->fn(), we cannot
build dependencies like C->A and C->B every time. Right?
> All of that is contained in kernel/kthread and kernel/workqueue and can
> be audited if needed. Its a very limited amount of code.
I mean, doing it automatically w/o additional overhead is better than
considering the limited amount of code manually every time changing
kernel code. Do as you please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists