From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755024AbdARLQZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:16:25 -0500 Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:51833 "EHLO lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753331AbdARKyC (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:54:02 -0500 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.151 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:53:47 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Boqun Feng Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/15] lockdep: Crossrelease feature documentation Message-ID: <20170118105346.GL3326@X58A-UD3R> References: <1481260331-360-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1481260331-360-16-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170118064230.GF15084@tardis.cn.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170118064230.GF15084@tardis.cn.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:42:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > [...] > > +Example 1: > > + > > + CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > + --------- --------- > > + mutext_lock A > > + lock_page B > > + lock_page B > > + mutext_lock A /* DEADLOCK */ > > s/mutext_lock/mutex_lock Thank you. > > +Example 3: > > + > > + CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > + --------- --------- > > + mutex_lock A > > + mutex_lock A > > + mutex_unlock A > > + wait_for_complete B /* DEADLOCK */ > > I think this part better be: > > CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > --------- --------- > mutex_lock A > mutex_lock A > wait_for_complete B /* DEADLOCK */ > mutex_unlock A > > , right? Because Y triggers DEADLOCK before X could run mutex_unlock(). There's no different between two examples. No matter which one is chosen, mutex_lock A in CONTEXT X cannot be passed. > > Regards, > Boqun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f200.google.com (mail-pf0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A393C6B0033 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:53:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf0-f200.google.com with SMTP id 204so12638380pfx.1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 02:53:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from lgeamrelo13.lge.com (LGEAMRELO13.lge.com. [156.147.23.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c23si28045285pli.184.2017.01.18.02.53.55 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 02:53:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:53:47 +0900 From: Byungchul Park Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/15] lockdep: Crossrelease feature documentation Message-ID: <20170118105346.GL3326@X58A-UD3R> References: <1481260331-360-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1481260331-360-16-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170118064230.GF15084@tardis.cn.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170118064230.GF15084@tardis.cn.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Boqun Feng Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:42:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > [...] > > +Example 1: > > + > > + CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > + --------- --------- > > + mutext_lock A > > + lock_page B > > + lock_page B > > + mutext_lock A /* DEADLOCK */ > > s/mutext_lock/mutex_lock Thank you. > > +Example 3: > > + > > + CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > + --------- --------- > > + mutex_lock A > > + mutex_lock A > > + mutex_unlock A > > + wait_for_complete B /* DEADLOCK */ > > I think this part better be: > > CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > --------- --------- > mutex_lock A > mutex_lock A > wait_for_complete B /* DEADLOCK */ > mutex_unlock A > > , right? Because Y triggers DEADLOCK before X could run mutex_unlock(). There's no different between two examples. No matter which one is chosen, mutex_lock A in CONTEXT X cannot be passed. > > Regards, > Boqun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org