MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1673235231-30302-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
In-Reply-To: <1673235231-30302-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:00:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whpkWbdeZE1zask8YPzVYevJU2xOXqOposBujxZsa2-tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 00/23] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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, willy@infradead.org, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

[ Back from travel, so trying to make sense of this series.. ]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 7:33 PM Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:
>
> I've been developing a tool for detecting deadlock possibilities by
> tracking wait/event rather than lock(?) acquisition order to try to
> cover all synchonization machanisms. It's done on v6.2-rc2.

Ugh. I hate how this adds random patterns like

        if (timeout == MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT)
                sdt_might_sleep_strong(NULL);
        else
                sdt_might_sleep_strong_timeout(NULL);
   ...
        sdt_might_sleep_finish();

to various places, it seems so very odd and unmaintainable.

I also recall this giving a fair amount of false positives, are they all fixed?

Anyway, I'd really like the lockdep people to comment and be involved.
We did have a fairly recent case of "lockdep doesn't track page lock
dependencies because it fundamentally cannot" issue, so DEPT might fix
those kinds of missing dependency analysis. See

    https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000060d41f05f139aa44@google.com/

for some context to that one, but at teh same time I would *really*
want the lockdep people more involved and acking this work.

Maybe I missed the email where you reported on things DEPT has found
(and on the lack of false positives)?

               Linus