Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt workqueue flush

2017-09-05 Thread Byungchul Park
> > Cc: t...@kernel.org; johannes.b...@intel.com; mi...@kernel.org; > > t...@linutronix.de; o...@redhat.com; da...@fromorbit.com; linux- > > ker...@vger.kernel.org; kernel-t...@lge.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt > > workqueue f

Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt workqueue flush

2017-09-05 Thread Peter Zijlstra
> > Cc: t...@kernel.org; johannes.b...@intel.com; mi...@kernel.org; > > t...@linutronix.de; o...@redhat.com; da...@fromorbit.com; linux- > > ker...@vger.kernel.org; kernel-t...@lge.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt > > workqueue f

RE: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt workqueue flush

2017-09-05 Thread 연
.com; linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org; kernel-t...@lge.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt > workqueue flush > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:29:14AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > Also, lock_map_acquire() in process_one_work() is too strong fo

Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt workqueue flush

2017-09-05 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:29:14AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > Also, lock_map_acquire() in process_one_work() is too strong for > that purpose. lock_map_acquire_might() is enough. Replaced it. NAK!! traditional annotations are superior to cross-release. They are not timing dependent.

[PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt workqueue flush

2017-09-04 Thread Byungchul Park
Workqueue added manual acquisitions to catch deadlock cases. Now crossrelease was introduced, some of those are redundant because crossrelease-enabled wait_for_completeion() also does it. Removed it. Also, lock_map_acquire() in process_one_work() is too strong for that purpose. lock_map_acquire_mi