[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171207122255.zi5ishny24k66ik7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:22:56 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...el.com>,
Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@...el.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new
> cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases
> they are because totally independent uses of kthread are mixed up by
> lockdep into the same locking class, creating artificial deadlocks.
>
> Fix this by converting kthread code in the same way as e.g.
> alloc_workqueue already works: Use macros for the public api so we can
> have a callsite specific lockdep key, then pass that through the
> entire callchain. Due to the many entry points this is slightly
> tedious.
Do you have a splat somewhere? I'm having trouble seeing how all this
comes together. That is, I've no real idea what you're actual problem is
and if this is the right solution.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists