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 S932547AbdHVKIu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 22 Aug 2017 06:08:50 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:51804 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932414AbdHVKIs (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 22 Aug 2017 06:08:48 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:08:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
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: <20170822100840.eababgjcu76iois5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1502960261-16206-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170821154600.asyzqs2zg6w6o4pg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170822051438.GD20323@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170822075238.uyfmhgxeal2bwcdg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170822085100.GH20323@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170822092141.fjmr74xhfid7vu7h@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170822093337.GJ20323@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170822093337.GJ20323@X58A-UD3R>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 06:33:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:21:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:51:00PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > That wouldn't work. That annotation is to help find deadlocks like:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 	mutex_lock(&A)
> > > > 				<work>
> > > > 				mutex_lock(&A)
> > > > 
> > > > 	flush_work(&work)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I meant:
> > > 
> > >  	mutex_lock(&A)
> > >  				<work>
> > >  				lockdep_map_acquire_read(&work)
> > >  				mutex_lock(&A)
> > > 
> > >  	lockdep_map_acquire(&work)
> > >  	flush_work(&work)
> > > 
> > > I mean it can still be detected with a read acquisition in work.
> > > Am I wrong?
> > 
> > Think so, although there's something weird with read locks that I keep
> > forgetting. But I'm not sure it'll actually solve the problem. But I can
> 
> I mean, read acquisitions are nothing but ones allowing read ones to be
> re-acquired legally, IOW, we want to check entrance of flush_work() and
> works, not between works. That's why I suggested to use read ones in work
> in that case.

Does seem to work.