On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:25:46PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:24:39PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:pet...@infradead.org] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:12 PM > > > To: Byungchul Park > > > Cc: mi...@kernel.org; t...@kernel.org; boqun.f...@gmail.com; > > > da...@fromorbit.com; johan...@sipsolutions.net; o...@redhat.com; linux- > > > ker...@vger.kernel.org; kernel-t...@lge.com > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:01:59PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > My point is that we inevitably lose valuable dependencies by yours. > > > That's > > > > why I've endlessly asked you 'do you have any reason you try those > > > patches?' > > > > a ton of times. And you have never answered it. > > > > > > The only dependencies that are lost are those between the first work and > > > the setup of the workqueue thread. > > > > > > And there obviously _should_ not be any dependencies between those. A > > > > 100% right. Since there obviously should not be any, it would be better > > to check them. So I've endlessly asked you 'do you have any reason removing > > the opportunity for that check?'. Overhead? Logical problem? Or want to > > believe workqueue setup code perfect forever? I mean, is it a problem if we > > check them? > > > > > work should not depend on the setup of the thread. > > > > 100% right. > > For example - I'm giving you the same example repeatedly: > > context X context Y > --------- --------- > wait_for_completion(C) > acquire(A) > process_one_work() > acquire(B) > work->fn() > complete(C) > > Please let lockdep check C->A and C->B.
You always stop answering whenever I ask you for opinion with this example. I'm really curious. Could you let me know your opinion about this example?
