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 S1757929AbdJMI2C (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 13 Oct 2017 04:28:02 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:57794 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1756721AbdJMI16 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 13 Oct 2017 04:27:58 -0400
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:27:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, johannes.berg@intel.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, oleg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 2/2] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions
 wrt workqueue flush
Message-ID: <20171013082750.nggigrx2hyxtwhl6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1507618297-27470-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <1507618297-27470-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20171012075435.GK3323@X58A-UD3R>
 <20171012153817.GQ3301751@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20171012155635.ntljsbmtq4mstb2f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171013075633.GN3323@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171013075633.GN3323@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 Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:56:33PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:56:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:38:17AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > 
> > > As long as we have the same level of protection, simpler code is of
> > > course preferable.  That said, I haven't followed the discussion
> > > closely and don't want to apply it without Peter's ack.  Peter?
> > 
> > I'm really tied up atm; and feel we should be addressing the false
> > positives generated by the current code before we start doing new stuff
> > on top.
> 
> We can never avoid adding false dependencies as long as we use
> acquisitions in that way the workqueue code does, even though you
> successfully replace write acquisitions with recursive-read ones after
> making them work, as you know.

Not the point; they still need to get annotated away. The block layer
and xfs are now fairly consistently triggering lockdep splats, that
needs to get sorted.