lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:26:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:43:23AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 03:49:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > So I think we'll end up hitting a lockdep deficiency and not trigger the
> > > splat on flush_work(), see also:
> > >
> > > https://lwn.net/Articles/332801/
> > >
> > > lock_map_acquire_read() is a read-recursive and will not in fact create
> > > any dependencies because of this issue.
> > >
> > > In specific, check_prev_add() has:
> > >
> > > if (next->read == 2 || prev->read == 2)
> > > return 1;
> > >
> > > This means that for:
> > >
> > > lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> > > down_write(A) (0)
> > >
> > > down_write(A) (0)
> > > wait_for_completion(C) (0)
> > >
> > > lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> > > complete(C) (0)
> > >
> > > All the (2) effectively go away and 'solve' our current issue, but:
> > >
> > > lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> > > mutex_lock(A) (0)
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(A) (0)
> > > lock_map_acquire(W) (0)
> > >
> > > as per flush_work() will not in fact trigger anymore either.
> >
> > It should be triggered. Lockdep code should be fixed so that it does.
>
> Yeah, its just something we never got around to. Once every so often I
> get reminded of it, like now. But then it sits on the todo list and
> never quite happens.

I want to try it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-24 07:08    [W:0.524 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site