lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:52:35AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:46:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 07:58:38PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 07:31:44PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > Recursive-read and the hint I proposed(a.k.a. might) should be used for
> > > > their different specific applications. Both meaning and constraints of
> > > > them are totally different.
> > > >
> > > > Using a right function semantically is more important than making it
> > > > just work, as you know. Wrong?
> >
> > > Of course, in the following cases, the results are same:
> > >
> > > recursive-read(A) -> recursive-read(A), is like nothing, and also
> > > might(A) -> might(A) , is like nothing.
> > >
> > > recursive-read(A) -> lock(A), end in a deadlock, and also
> > > might(A) -> lock(A), end in a deadlock.
> >
> > And these are exactly the cases we need.
> >
> > > Futhermore, recursive-read-might() can be used if needed, since their
> > > semantics are orthogonal so they can be used in mixed forms.
> > >
> > > I really hope you accept the new semantics... I think current workqueue
> > > code exactly needs the semantics.
> >
> > I really don't want to introduce this extra state if we don't have to.
>
> OK. If the workqueue is only user of the weird lockdep annotations, then
> it might be better to defer introducing the extra state until needed.
>
> But, the 'might' thing I introduced would be necessary if more users
> want to report deadlocks at the time for crosslocks with speculative
> acquisitions like the workqueue does, since the recursive-read thing
> would generate false dependencies much more than we want, while the

What do you mean by "false dependencies"? AFAICT, recursive-read could
have dependencies to the following cross commit, for example:

A(a)
ARR(a)
RRR(a)
WFC(X)
C(X)

This is a deadlock, no?

In my upcoming v2 for recursive-read support, I'm going to make this
detectable. But please note as crossrelease doesn't have any selftests
as normal lockdep stuffs, I may miss something subtle.

Regards,
Boqun

> 'might' thing generate them just as many as we want.
>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-06 02:42    [W:0.135 / U:0.756 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site