Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:26:38 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: "'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@infradead.org>
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: <20170831072637.GI3240@X58A-UD3R>
References: <20170824140240.t4imrpvussebfimm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170825011114.GA3858@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170829085939.ggmb6xiohw67micb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170830020953.GE3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170830074117.GG3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170830085333.GM32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <004601d3216e$a3702030$ea506090$@lge.com>
 <20170830091223.xxnh3podtcumlabm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <004701d32171$ce57d4c0$6b077e40$@lge.com>
 <20170830112546.GH3240@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170830112546.GH3240@X58A-UD3R>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1978
Lines: 49

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:25:46PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:24:39PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@infradead.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:12 PM
> > > To: Byungchul Park
> > > 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 Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:01:59PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > My point is that we inevitably lose valuable dependencies by yours.
> > > That's
> > > > why I've endlessly asked you 'do you have any reason you try those
> > > patches?'
> > > > a ton of times. And you have never answered it.
> > > 
> > > The only dependencies that are lost are those between the first work and
> > > the setup of the workqueue thread.
> > > 
> > > And there obviously _should_ not be any dependencies between those. A
> > 
> > 100% right. Since there obviously should not be any, it would be better
> > to check them. So I've endlessly asked you 'do you have any reason removing
> > the opportunity for that check?'. Overhead? Logical problem? Or want to
> > believe workqueue setup code perfect forever? I mean, is it a problem if we
> > check them?
> > 
> > > work should not depend on the setup of the thread.
> > 
> > 100% right.
> 
> For example - I'm giving you the same example repeatedly:
> 
> context X                 context Y
> ---------                 ---------
>                           wait_for_completion(C)
> acquire(A)
> process_one_work()
>    acquire(B)
>    work->fn()
>       complete(C)
> 
> Please let lockdep check C->A and C->B.

You always stop answering whenever I ask you for opinion with this
example. I'm really curious. Could you let me know your opinion about
this example?