From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752110AbdIANvw (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:51:52 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f67.google.com ([209.85.215.67]:38818 "EHLO mail-lf0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751975AbdIANvv (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:51:51 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb7k6HSLmy4TKJEVjoEnAzdlTOlrFJo+kfQelWRFqGE6R83aU8SijvJau2WsMsJQRKZLGkB1/OXmOf6z9J091Vk= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170901123856.p2trpebau57yxftc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <004601d3216e$a3702030$ea506090$@lge.com> <20170830091223.xxnh3podtcumlabm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <004701d32171$ce57d4c0$6b077e40$@lge.com> <20170830112546.GH3240@X58A-UD3R> <20170831080442.5vdgoaijzmrc776x@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170831081501.GJ3240@X58A-UD3R> <20170831083453.5tfjofzk7idthsof@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170901020512.GK3240@X58A-UD3R> <20170901094747.iv6s532ccuuzpry2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170901101629.GL3240@X58A-UD3R> <20170901123856.p2trpebau57yxftc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Byungchul Park Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 22:51:48 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Byungchul Park , Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , Boqun Feng , david@fromorbit.com, Johannes Berg , oleg@redhat.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , kernel-team@lge.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:16:29PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > >> It would be gone _only_ at the time the history overrun, and then it >> will be built again. So, you are wrong. s/it will be built again/the acquisition will be added into the xhlock array again/ Now, better to understand? > How will it ever be build again? You only ever spawn the worker thread > _ONCE_, then it runs lots and lots of works. > > We _could_ go fix it, but I really don't see it being worth the time and We don't need to fix it spending time and effort. Just *revert* all your wrong patches. > effort, its a few isolated locks inside the kthread/workqueue code. Please point out what I am wrong and what you want to say, *with* my latest example. Doing it with my example would be very helpful to understand you. -- Thanks, Byungchul