Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751309AbdH2Gql (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 02:46:41 -0400 Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:45345 "EHLO lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284AbdH2Gqk (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 02:46:40 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.151 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:46:38 +0900 From: Byungchul Park 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 Message-ID: <20170829064637.GC3240@X58A-UD3R> References: <20170823115843.662056844@infradead.org> <20170823121432.990701317@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170823121432.990701317@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1308 Lines: 42 On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > The new completion/crossrelease annotations interact unfavourable with > the extant flush_work()/flush_workqueue() annotations. > > The problem is that when a single work class does: > > wait_for_completion(&C) > > and > > complete(&C) > > in different executions, we'll build dependencies like: > > lock_map_acquire(W) > complete_acquire(C) > > and > > lock_map_acquire(W) > complete_release(C) > > which results in the dependency chain: W->C->W, which lockdep thinks > spells deadlock, even though there is no deadlock potential since > works are ran concurrently. > > One possibility would be to change the work 'lock' to recursive-read, > but that would mean hitting a lockdep limitation on recursive locks. > Also, unconditinoally switching to recursive-read here would fail to > detect the actual deadlock on single-threaded workqueues, which do > have a problem with this. > > For now, forcefully disregard these locks for crossrelease. Eventually, you pushed this patch to tip tree without any comment. I don't really understand you. How does a maintainer choose a very work-around method and avoid problems rather than fix a root cause? I am very disappointed. But, I have nothing to do against your will.