Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:33:58 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc:     boqun.feng@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com,
        linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        will@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, sashal@kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch,
        duyuyang@gmail.com, johannes.berg@intel.com, tj@kernel.org,
        tytso@mit.edu, david@fromorbit.com, amir73il@gmail.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-team@lge.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org,
        minchan@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com,
        sj@kernel.org, jglisse@redhat.com, dennis@kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
        penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        ngupta@vflare.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        paolo.valente@linaro.org, josef@toxicpanda.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        jack@suse.cz, jlayton@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        hch@infradead.org, djwong@kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com,
        melissa.srw@gmail.com, hamohammed.sa@gmail.com,
        42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, chris.p.wilson@intel.com,
        gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com, max.byungchul.park@gmail.com,
        longman@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 00/23] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)
Message-ID: <Y8lGxkBrls6qQOdM@casper.infradead.org>
References: <Y8bmeffIQ3iXU3Ux@boqun-archlinux>
 <1674109388-6663-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1674109388-6663-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 03:23:08PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Boqun wrote:
> > *	Looks like the DEPT dependency graph doesn't handle the
> > 	fair/unfair readers as lockdep current does. Which bring the
> > 	next question.
> 
> No. DEPT works better for unfair read. It works based on wait/event. So
> read_lock() is considered a potential wait waiting on write_unlock()
> while write_lock() is considered a potential wait waiting on either
> write_unlock() or read_unlock(). DEPT is working perfect for it.
> 
> For fair read (maybe you meant queued read lock), I think the case
> should be handled in the same way as normal lock. I might get it wrong.
> Please let me know if I miss something.

From the lockdep/DEPT point of view, the question is whether:

	read_lock(A)
	read_lock(A)

can deadlock if a writer comes in between the two acquisitions and
sleeps waiting on A to be released.  A fair lock will block new
readers when a writer is waiting, while an unfair lock will allow
new readers even while a writer is waiting.