Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 20:24:48 +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: <20170905112448.GY3240@X58A-UD3R>
References: <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>
 <20170905103144.GW3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170905105236.5qynhkguxzzqued4@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170905105236.5qynhkguxzzqued4@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1013
Lines: 28

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:52:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 07:31:44PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> By having wait_for_completion() in it, A is not a leaf lock.

I see. After all, you want to force to use only leaf locks in (1), (3)
and (5) forever in future. I really don't understand why you want to
force it and use them carefully always in head, *only* for that locks,
though original code even makes it unnecessary.

But ok...

Let's discuss the issue later if necessary.

Again, I think your patches are worth nothing but avoiding the
workqueue issue. I really hope you think it more, but it's ok if you
don't want...