[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170905105838.GX3240@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:58:38 +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 07:31:44PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> 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?
For example, _semantically_:
lock(A) -> recursive-read(A), end in a deadlock, while
lock(A) -> might(A) , is like nothing.
recursive-read(A) -> might(A), is like nothing, while
might(A) -> recursive-read(A), end in a deadlock.
And so on...
Of course, in the following cases, the results are same:
recursive-read(A) -> recursive-read(A), is like nothing, and also
might(A) -> might(A) , is like nothing.
recursive-read(A) -> lock(A), end in a deadlock, and also
might(A) -> lock(A), end in a deadlock.
Futhermore, recursive-read-might() can be used if needed, since their
semantics are orthogonal so they can be used in mixed forms.
I really hope you accept the new semantics... I think current workqueue
code exactly needs the semantics.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists