From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?udq6tMO2L7yxwNO/rLG4v/gvU1cgUGxhdGZvcm0ov6wpQU9UxsAo?=
         =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?Ynl1bmdjaHVsLnBhcmtAbGdlLmNvbSk=?= 
        <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>, "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
        "boqun.feng@gmail.com" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "david@fromorbit.com" <david@fromorbit.com>,
        "johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        "oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@lge.com" <kernel-team@lge.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 21:09:46 +0900
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
Thread-Index: AdMjC2RpdUSlwJqQSH2FSWJ2Ja579wAD4Z7g
Message-ID: <C80AB6F618D91B4E8F391CB202C12DFD1ED20A9967@LGEVEXMBHQSVC1.LGE.NET>
References: <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>
 <20170901020512.GK3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170901094747.iv6s532ccuuzpry2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170901101629.GL3240@X58A-UD3R>
In-Reply-To: <20170901101629.GL3240@X58A-UD3R>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: ko-KR
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 2532
Lines: 70

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Byungchul Park [mailto:byungchul.park@lge.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 7:16 PM
> 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
> 
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:47:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:05:12AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > The moment you overrun the history array its gone. So yes, only the
> 
> It would be gone _only_ at the time the history overrun, and then it
> will be built again. So, you are wrong.
> 
> Let me show you an example: (I hope you also show examples.)
> 
> context X                  context Y
> ---------                  ---------
>                            wait_for_completion(D)
> while (true)
>    acquire(A)
>    release(A)
>    process_one_work()
>       acquire(B)
>       release(B)
>       work->fn()
>          complete(C)
>    acquire(D)
>    release(D)
> 
> When happening an overrun in a 'work', 'A' and 'B' will be gone _only_
> at the time, and then 'D', 'A' and 'B' will be queued into the xhlock
> *again* from the next loop on, and they can be used to generate useful
> dependencies again.
> 
> You are being confused now. Acquisitions we are focusing now are not
> _stacked_ like hlocks, but _accumulated_ continuously onto the ring
> buffer e.i. xhlock array.

Agree?