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.
