lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [23]   [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 11:31:18AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:06:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Currently, we do the following in process_one_work(),
>
> lockdep_map_acquire for a workqueue
> lockdep_map_acquire for a work
>
> But IMHO it should be,
>
> lockdep_map_acquire for a pair of workqueue and work.
>
> Right?

No, it is right. We need the two 'locks'.

The work one is for flush_work(), the workqueue one is for
flush_workqueue().

Just like how flush_work() must not depend on any lock taken inside the
work, flush_workqueue() callers must not hold any lock acquired inside
any work ran inside the workqueue. This cannot be done with a single
'lock'.

The reason flush_work() also depends on the wq 'lock' is because doing
flush_work() from inside work is a possible problem for single threaded
workqueues and workqueues with a rescuer.

> > Agreed. The interaction with workqueues is buggered.
>
> I think original uses of lockdep_map were already wrong. I mean it's
> not a problem of newly introduced code.

Not wrong per-se, the new code certainly places more constraints on it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-23 12:47    [W:0.107 / U:8.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site