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 S1751264AbdIEKwq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 5 Sep 2017 06:52:46 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:34861 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751110AbdIEKwn (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 5 Sep 2017 06:52:43 -0400
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:52:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, david@fromorbit.com,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, oleg@redhat.com,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
Message-ID: <20170905105236.5qynhkguxzzqued4@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CANrsvRMc4QXnRFpYY1m7X+WU52WrC7HvvhbvAUqTWQTx2Py6bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170901163852.ckslrgldsalqmg3c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170904013031.GM3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170904114248.kls4jv2ggsv46mli@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170905003844.GO3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170905070825.tovfkqvxpwosh5oa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170905071930.h6t2f4guvmswibnv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170905085727.GV3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170905093624.zlwhvg32ahkpnamk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170905103144.GW3240@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170905103144.GW3240@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 Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 07:31:44PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Let me show you a possible scenario with a leaf lock:
> 
>                         lock(A)
>    lock(A)              wait_for_completion(B)
>    unlock(A)            ...
>    ...                  unlock(A)
>    process_one_work()
>       work->func()
>          complete(B)
> 
> It's a deadlock by a lead lock A and completion B.

By having wait_for_completion() in it, A is not a leaf lock.