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 S1751337AbdIEK6q (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 5 Sep 2017 06:58:46 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:38858 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751236AbdIEK6p (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 5 Sep 2017 06:58:45 -0400
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:58:38 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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: <20170905105838.GX3240@X58A-UD3R>
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: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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:
> Recursive-read and the hint I proposed(a.k.a. might) should be used for
> their different specific applications. Both meaning and constraints of
> them are totally different.
> 
> Using a right function semantically is more important than making it
> just work, as you know. Wrong?

For example, _semantically_:

   lock(A) -> recursive-read(A), end in a deadlock, while
   lock(A) -> might(A)         , is like nothing.

   recursive-read(A) -> might(A), is like nothing, while
   might(A) -> recursive-read(A), end in a deadlock.

   And so on...

Of course, in the following cases, the results are same:

   recursive-read(A) -> recursive-read(A), is like nothing, and also
   might(A)          -> might(A)         , is like nothing.

   recursive-read(A) -> lock(A), end in a deadlock, and also
   might(A)          -> lock(A), end in a deadlock.

Futhermore, recursive-read-might() can be used if needed, since their
semantics are orthogonal so they can be used in mixed forms.

I really hope you accept the new semantics... I think current workqueue
code exactly needs the semantics.