Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: lockdep-design: correct the notation for writer
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>, Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@me.com>,
        peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
        corbet@lwn.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
References: <1621578594-13237-1-git-send-email-sxwjean@me.com>
 <e0c0302f-e63f-7eba-872b-85e21b0b1622@redhat.com>
 <CAEVVKH9nwPmQo8L-eRsWST+gPaJ73MSHZfJ-mM8qWvPaiejdrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YKuAvt3WXBVASuhY@boqun-archlinux>
Message-ID: <ab3c5c38-1447-99e1-ee22-9e5af906d8b4@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 09:42:20 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YKuAvt3WXBVASuhY@boqun-archlinux>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 5/24/21 6:32 AM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:24:00PM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:17 PM Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/21/21 2:29 AM, Xiongwei Song wrote:
>>>> From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> The block condition matrix is using 'E' as the writer noation here, so it
>>>> would be better to use 'E' as the reminder rather than 'W'.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst
>>>> index 9f3cfca..c3b923a 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst
>>>> @@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ Block condition matrix, Y means the row blocks the column, and N means otherwise
>>>>        | R | Y | Y | N |
>>>>        +---+---+---+---+
>>>>
>>>> -     (W: writers, r: non-recursive readers, R: recursive readers)
>>>> +     (E: writers, r: non-recursive readers, R: recursive readers)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    acquired recursively. Unlike non-recursive read locks, recursive read locks
>>> I would say it should be the other way around. Both W and E refer to the
>>> same type of lockers. W emphasizes writer aspect of it and E for
>>> exclusive. I think we should change the block condition matrix to use W
>>> instead of E.
>> The doc uses 'E'  to describe dependency egdes too. Should we change them
>> to 'W'? Personally,  both 'W' and 'E' are fine.
>>
> I also think Waiman's suggestion is solid, there are two ways to
> classify locks:
>
> 1.	W (Writers), R (Recursive Readers), r (Non-recursive Readers)
>
> 2.	E (Exclusive locks), S (Shared locks), R (Recursive Readers),
> 	N (Non-recursive locks)
>
> And the relations between them are as follow:
>
> 	E = W
> 	R = R
> 	N = W \/ r
> 	S = R \/ r
>
> , where "\/" is the set union.
>
> The story is that I used the way #1 at first, and later on realized way
> #2 is better for BFS implementation, also for reasoning, so here came
> this leftover..
>
My suggestion was based on the fact that it is harder to associate E 
with writer. So from a readability perspective, it is better to change 
the block condition matrix to use 'W' to make it more readable.

Cheers,
Longman