From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752736AbdHVFOs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 22 Aug 2017 01:14:48 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:44337 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751043AbdHVFOr (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 22 Aug 2017 01:14:47 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:14:38 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        johannes@sipsolutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all
 part of PROVE_LOCKING
Message-ID: <20170822051438.GD20323@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1502960261-16206-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170821154600.asyzqs2zg6w6o4pg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170821154600.asyzqs2zg6w6o4pg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:46:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now given the above observance rule and the fact that the below report
> is from the complete, the thing that happened appears to be:
> 
> 
> 	lockdep_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map)
> 	down_write(&A)
> 
> 			down_write(&A)
> 			wait_for_completion(&C)
> 
> 					lockdep_map_acquire(&work_lockdep_map);
> 					complete(&C)
> 
> Which lockdep then puked over because both sides saw the same work
> class.
> 
> Byungchul; should we not exclude the work class itself, it appears to me
> the workqueue code is explicitly parallel, or am I confused again?

Do you mean the lockdep_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map) used manuallly?

That was introduced by Johannes:

commit 4e6045f134784f4b158b3c0f7a282b04bd816887
"workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep"

I am not sure but, for that purpose, IMHO, we can use a
lockdep_map_acquire_read() instead, in process_one_work(), can't we?