From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22DF9C55ABD for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E662225B for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728457AbgKPJHP (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2020 04:07:15 -0500 Received: from lgeamrelo13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:56124 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728165AbgKPJHP (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2020 04:07:15 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO lgemrelse7q.lge.com) (156.147.1.151) by 156.147.23.53 with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2020 18:07:13 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.151 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Received: from unknown (HELO X58A-UD3R) (10.177.222.33) by 156.147.1.151 with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2020 18:07:13 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:05:47 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Byungchul Park Cc: Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, LKML , Joel Fernandes , alexander.levin@microsoft.com, Daniel Vetter , Chris Wilson , duyuyang@gmail.com, johannes.berg@intel.com, Tejun Heo , Theodore Ts'o , willy@infradead.org, david@fromorbit.com, Amir Goldstein , bfields@fieldses.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-team Subject: Re: [RFC] Are you good with Lockdep? Message-ID: <20201116090547.GC26078@X58A-UD3R> References: <20201111050559.GA24438@X58A-UD3R> <20201111105441.GA78848@gmail.com> <20201111093609.1bd2b637@gandalf.local.home> <87d00jo55p.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20201112081030.GB14554@X58A-UD3R> <20201112092612.00a19239@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:58:44PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > FYI, roughly Lockdep is doing: > > > > > > 1. Dependency check > > > 2. Lock usage correctness check (including RCU) > > > 3. IRQ related usage correctness check with IRQFLAGS > > > > > > 2 and 3 should be there forever which is subtle and have gotten matured. > > > But 1 is not. I've been talking about 1. But again, it's not about > > > replacing it right away but having both for a while. I'm gonna try my > > > best to make it better. > > > > And I believe lockdep does handle 1. Perhaps show some tangible use case > > that you want to cover that you do not believe that lockdep can handle. If > > lockdep cannot handle it, it will show us where lockdep is lacking. If it > > can handle it, it will educate you on other ways that lockdep can be > > helpful in your development ;-) 1) OK. Lockdep might work with trylock well. 2) Definitely Lockdep cannot do what Cross-release was doing. 3) For readlock handling, let me be back later and give you examples. I need check current Lockdep code first. But I have to all-stop what I'm doing at the moment because of a very big personal issue, which is a sad thing. Sorry for the late response. Thank you, Byungchul > > Yes. That's the best thing I can do for all of us. I will. > > I already did exactly the same thing while I was developing cross-release. > But I'm willing to do it again with the current Lockdep code. > > But not today. It's over mid-night. Good night~ > > -- > Thanks, > Byungchul