Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751412AbdIACFU (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:05:20 -0400 Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:50092 "EHLO lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750955AbdIACFT (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:05:19 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.125 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:05:12 +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: <20170901020512.GK3240@X58A-UD3R> References: <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> <20170831080442.5vdgoaijzmrc776x@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170831081501.GJ3240@X58A-UD3R> <20170831083453.5tfjofzk7idthsof@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170831083453.5tfjofzk7idthsof@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> 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: 1346 Lines: 37 On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:34:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 05:15:01PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > It's not important. Ok, check the following, instead: > > > > context X context Y > > --------- --------- > > wait_for_completion(C) > > acquire(A) > > release(A) > > process_one_work() > > acquire(B) > > release(B) > > work->fn() > > complete(C) > > > > We don't need to lose C->A and C->B dependencies unnecessarily. > > I really can't be arsed about them. Its really only the first few works > that will retain that dependency anyway, even if you were to retain > them. Wrong. Every 'work' doing complete() for different classes of completion variable suffers from losing valuable dependencies, every time, not first few ones. Remind we are talking about dependencies wrt cross-lock, not between _holding_ locks. If you invalidate xhlock whenever work->fn(), we cannot build dependencies like C->A and C->B every time. Right? > All of that is contained in kernel/kthread and kernel/workqueue and can > be audited if needed. Its a very limited amount of code. I mean, doing it automatically w/o additional overhead is better than considering the limited amount of code manually every time changing kernel code. Do as you please.