Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:13:50 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Provide one lock class key per work_on_cpu()
 callsite
Message-ID: <ZS_L_pWMNVYLka-K@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20230924150702.9588-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <ZS-rCIejToOlJcqm@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZS-rCIejToOlJcqm@slm.duckdns.org>
Precedence: bulk

Le Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:53:12PM -1000, Tejun Heo a ?crit :
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 05:07:02PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > All callers of work_on_cpu() share the same lock class key for all the
> > functions queued. As a result the workqueue related locking scenario for
> > a function A may be spuriously accounted as an inversion against the
> > locking scenario of function B such as in the following model:
> > 
> > 	long A(void *arg)
> > 	{
> > 		mutex_lock(&mutex);
> > 		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	long B(void *arg)
> > 	{
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	void launchA(void)
> > 	{
> > 		work_on_cpu(0, A, NULL);
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	void launchB(void)
> > 	{
> > 		mutex_lock(&mutex);
> > 		work_on_cpu(1, B, NULL);
> > 		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> > 	}
> > 
> > launchA and launchB running concurrently have no chance to deadlock.
> > However the above can be reported by lockdep as a possible locking
> > inversion because the works containing A() and B() are treated as
> > belonging to the same locking class.
> 
> Sorry about the delay. I missed this one. Applied to wq/for-6.7.

No problem, thanks a lot!

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun