[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170904114248.kls4jv2ggsv46mli@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 13:42:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, david@...morbit.com,
Johannes Berg <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 Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:30:32AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:38:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And get tangled up with the workqueue annotation again, no thanks.
> > Having the first few works see the thread setup isn't worth it.
> >
> > And your work_id annotation had the same problem.
>
> I keep asking you for an example because I really understand you.
>
> Fix my problematic example with your patches,
>
> or,
>
> Show me a problematic scenario with my original code, you expect.
>
> Whatever, it would be helpful to understand you.
I _really_ don't understand what you're worried about. Is it the kthread
create and workqueue init or the pool->lock that is released/acquired in
process_one_work()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists