Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:53:39 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, johannes.berg@intel.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
Message-ID: <20170830015338.GD3240@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1503650463-14582-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170825133442.GU491396@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <CANrsvRP_os8F4qZSEo_cfuM1oBcMnUGx-H28kGfzv0OGmcygLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170829185727.GY32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170829185727.GY32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1578
Lines: 45

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:49:26AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
> > 
> > I think it must be distinguished with what it actually waits for, e.i.
> > completion
> > variables instead of work or wq. I will make it next week and let you know.
> 
> So no. The existing annotations are strictly better than relying on
> cross-release.

Thank you for exaplanation but, as I already said, this is why I said
"I don't think it's the same level currently. But, I can make it with
some modification." to TJ:

https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1479560.html

And also I mentioned we might need the current code inevitably but, the
existing annotations are never good and why here:

https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1480173.html

> As you know the problem with cross-release is that it is timing
> dependent. You need to actually observe the problematic sequence before
> it can warn, and only the whole instance->class mapping saves us from
> actually hitting the deadlock.

Of course.

> The same would be true for using cross-release for workqueues as well,
> something like:
> 
> 					W:
> 					mutex_lock(A)
> 
> 	mutex_lock(A)
> 	flush_work(W)
> 
> would go unreported whereas the current workqueue annotation will
> generate a splat.

Of course.

That's why I said we need to work on it. But it should be modified so
that the wq code becomes more clear instead of abusing weird acquire()s.