[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170905103144.GW3240@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:31:44 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:36:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 05:57:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:19:30AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:08:25AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > So you worry about max_active==1 ? Or you worry about pool->lock or
> > > > about the thread setup? I'm still not sure.
> > >
> > > So the thing about pool->lock is that its a leaf lock, we take nothing
> >
> > I think the following sentence is a key, I hope...
> >
> > Leaf locks can also create dependecies with *crosslocks*. These
> > dependencies are not built between holding locks like typical locks.
>
> They can create dependencies, but they _cannot_ create deadlocks. So
> there's no value in those dependencies.
Let me show you a possible scenario with a leaf lock:
lock(A)
lock(A) wait_for_completion(B)
unlock(A) ...
... unlock(A)
process_one_work()
work->func()
complete(B)
It's a deadlock by a lead lock A and completion B.
> > > And the whole setup stuff isn't properly preserved between works in any
> > > case, only the first few works would ever see that history, so why
> > > bother.
> >
> > As I said in another reply, what about (1), (3) and (5) in my example?
>
> So for single-threaded workqueues, I'd like to get recursive-read sorted
> and then we can make the lockdep_invariant_state() conditional.
>
> Using recurisve-read lock for the wq lockdep_map's has the same effect
> as your might thing without having to introduce new magic.
Recursive-read and the hint I proposed(a.k.a. might) should be used for
their different specific applications. Both meaning and constraints of
them are totally different.
Using a right function semantically is more important than making it
just work, as you know. Wrong?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists