Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:31:44 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, david@fromorbit.com,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, oleg@redhat.com,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
Message-ID: <20170905103144.GW3240@X58A-UD3R>
References: <20170901123856.p2trpebau57yxftc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CANrsvRMc4QXnRFpYY1m7X+WU52WrC7HvvhbvAUqTWQTx2Py6bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170901163852.ckslrgldsalqmg3c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170904013031.GM3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170904114248.kls4jv2ggsv46mli@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170905003844.GO3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170905070825.tovfkqvxpwosh5oa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170905071930.h6t2f4guvmswibnv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170905085727.GV3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170905093624.zlwhvg32ahkpnamk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170905093624.zlwhvg32ahkpnamk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1913
Lines: 47

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:36:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 05:57:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:19:30AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:08:25AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > So you worry about max_active==1 ? Or you worry about pool->lock or
> > > > about the thread setup? I'm still not sure.
> > > 
> > > So the thing about pool->lock is that its a leaf lock, we take nothing
> > 
> > I think the following sentence is a key, I hope...
> > 
> > Leaf locks can also create dependecies with *crosslocks*. These
> > dependencies are not built between holding locks like typical locks.
> 
> They can create dependencies, but they _cannot_ create deadlocks. So
> there's no value in those dependencies.

Let me show you a possible scenario with a leaf lock:

                        lock(A)
   lock(A)              wait_for_completion(B)
   unlock(A)            ...
   ...                  unlock(A)
   process_one_work()
      work->func()
         complete(B)

It's a deadlock by a lead lock A and completion B.

> > > And the whole setup stuff isn't properly preserved between works in any
> > > case, only the first few works would ever see that history, so why
> > > bother.
> > 
> > As I said in another reply, what about (1), (3) and (5) in my example?
> 
> So for single-threaded workqueues, I'd like to get recursive-read sorted
> and then we can make the lockdep_invariant_state() conditional.
> 
> Using recurisve-read lock for the wq lockdep_map's has the same effect
> as your might thing without having to introduce new magic.

Recursive-read and the hint I proposed(a.k.a. might) should be used for
their different specific applications. Both meaning and constraints of
them are totally different.

Using a right function semantically is more important than making it
just work, as you know. Wrong?