Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1722966
| From | Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks |
| Date | 2017-08-30 04:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uk0sp-1Us-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <uiits-1L5-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <uin06-4CU-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <uip1T-5RV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujTTY-6ib-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:49:26AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work > > > > I think it must be distinguished with what it actually waits for, e.i. > > completion > > variables instead of work or wq. I will make it next week and let you know. > > So no. The existing annotations are strictly better than relying on > cross-release. Thank you for exaplanation but, as I already said, this is why I said "I don't think it's the same level currently. But, I can make it with some modification." to TJ: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1479560.html And also I mentioned we might need the current code inevitably but, the existing annotations are never good and why here: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1480173.html > As you know the problem with cross-release is that it is timing > dependent. You need to actually observe the problematic sequence before > it can warn, and only the whole instance->class mapping saves us from > actually hitting the deadlock. Of course. > The same would be true for using cross-release for workqueues as well, > something like: > > W: > mutex_lock(A) > > mutex_lock(A) > flush_work(W) > > would go unreported whereas the current workqueue annotation will > generate a splat. Of course. That's why I said we need to work on it. But it should be modified so that the wq code becomes more clear instead of abusing weird acquire()s.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2017-08-25 15:40 +0200
Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:50 +0200
Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-08-29 21:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-08-30 04:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-08-30 08:30 +0200
Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2017-08-29 02:30 +0200
csiph-web