lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRE: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Byungchul Park [mailto:byungchul.park@lge.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 7:16 PM
> To: Peter Zijlstra
> Cc: mingo@kernel.org; tj@kernel.org; boqun.feng@gmail.com;
> david@fromorbit.com; johannes@sipsolutions.net; oleg@redhat.com; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; kernel-team@lge.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
>
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:47:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:05:12AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:34:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 05:15:01PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > > It's not important. Ok, check the following, instead:
> > > > >
> > > > > context X context Y
> > > > > --------- ---------
> > > > > wait_for_completion(C)
> > > > > acquire(A)
> > > > > release(A)
> > > > > process_one_work()
> > > > > acquire(B)
> > > > > release(B)
> > > > > work->fn()
> > > > > complete(C)
> > > > >
> > > > > We don't need to lose C->A and C->B dependencies unnecessarily.
> > > >
> > > > I really can't be arsed about them. Its really only the first few
> works
> > > > that will retain that dependency anyway, even if you were to retain
> > > > them.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > Every 'work' doing complete() for different classes of completion
> > > variable suffers from losing valuable dependencies, every time, not
> > > first few ones.
> >
> > The moment you overrun the history array its gone. So yes, only the
>
> It would be gone _only_ at the time the history overrun, and then it
> will be built again. So, you are wrong.
>
> Let me show you an example: (I hope you also show examples.)
>
> context X context Y
> --------- ---------
> wait_for_completion(D)
> while (true)
> acquire(A)
> release(A)
> process_one_work()
> acquire(B)
> release(B)
> work->fn()
> complete(C)
> acquire(D)
> release(D)
>
> When happening an overrun in a 'work', 'A' and 'B' will be gone _only_
> at the time, and then 'D', 'A' and 'B' will be queued into the xhlock
> *again* from the next loop on, and they can be used to generate useful
> dependencies again.
>
> You are being confused now. Acquisitions we are focusing now are not
> _stacked_ like hlocks, but _accumulated_ continuously onto the ring
> buffer e.i. xhlock array.

Agree?
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-01 14:10    [W:0.111 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site