[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171013082750.nggigrx2hyxtwhl6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:27:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, johannes.berg@...el.com,
mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 2/2] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions
wrt workqueue flush
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:56:33PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:56:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:38:17AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >
> > > As long as we have the same level of protection, simpler code is of
> > > course preferable. That said, I haven't followed the discussion
> > > closely and don't want to apply it without Peter's ack. Peter?
> >
> > I'm really tied up atm; and feel we should be addressing the false
> > positives generated by the current code before we start doing new stuff
> > on top.
>
> We can never avoid adding false dependencies as long as we use
> acquisitions in that way the workqueue code does, even though you
> successfully replace write acquisitions with recursive-read ones after
> making them work, as you know.
Not the point; they still need to get annotated away. The block layer
and xfs are now fairly consistently triggering lockdep splats, that
needs to get sorted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists