Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753686AbdIDLnC (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2017 07:43:02 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:44006 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753477AbdIDLnB (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2017 07:43:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 13:42:48 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Byungchul Park Cc: Byungchul Park , Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , Boqun Feng , david@fromorbit.com, Johannes Berg , oleg@redhat.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation Message-ID: <20170904114248.kls4jv2ggsv46mli@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <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> <20170901123856.p2trpebau57yxftc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170901163852.ckslrgldsalqmg3c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170904013031.GM3240@X58A-UD3R> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170904013031.GM3240@X58A-UD3R> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 760 Lines: 20 On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:30:32AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:38:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > And get tangled up with the workqueue annotation again, no thanks. > > Having the first few works see the thread setup isn't worth it. > > > > And your work_id annotation had the same problem. > > I keep asking you for an example because I really understand you. > > Fix my problematic example with your patches, > > or, > > Show me a problematic scenario with my original code, you expect. > > Whatever, it would be helpful to understand you. I _really_ don't understand what you're worried about. Is it the kthread create and workqueue init or the pool->lock that is released/acquired in process_one_work()?