[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170905072239.ggxalc2vrbpoyppr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 09:22:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, johannes.berg@...el.com, mingo@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com, david@...morbit.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] lockdep: Introduce lock_acquire_might()
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:29:13AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> From the point of view of crossrelease, we can never be aware of the
> release context in advance, until we get to the lock_release().
> However, this way we cannot report deadlocks occured at the time.
>
> Sometimes, we want to report that kind of problems, taking a risk
> generating false dependencies e.g. lock_acquire()s in workqueue code,
> which inevitably generate false ones with all acquisitions in works.
>
> It would be better to provide another primitive, lock_acquire_might()
> for that purpose so that lockdep internal can be aware of what users
> expect and get chances to enhance to avoid false ones.
>
> The primitive should:
>
> 1. work as if it's trylock, since links between lock_acquire_might()
> and later ones are only meaningful. Remind this should be used to
> do what crossrelease commit does, in advance.
>
> 2. make acquisitions by lock_acquire_might() ignored on the commit.
>
Shees, talk about ugly... Also might-lock has a different meaning.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists