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 S1751016AbdH3GXz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 30 Aug 2017 02:23:55 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:58363 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750761AbdH3GXy (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 30 Aug 2017 02:23:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:23:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, johannes.berg@intel.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
Message-ID: <20170830062347.GI32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1503650463-14582-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170825133442.GU491396@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <CANrsvRP_os8F4qZSEo_cfuM1oBcMnUGx-H28kGfzv0OGmcygLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170829185727.GY32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170830015338.GD3240@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170830015338.GD3240@X58A-UD3R>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:53:39AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:49:26AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
> > > 
> > > I think it must be distinguished with what it actually waits for, e.i.
> > > completion
> > > variables instead of work or wq. I will make it next week and let you know.
> > 
> > So no. The existing annotations are strictly better than relying on
> > cross-release.
> 
> Thank you for exaplanation but, as I already said, this is why I said
> "I don't think it's the same level currently. But, I can make it with
> some modification." to TJ:
> 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1479560.html
> 
> And also I mentioned we might need the current code inevitably but, the
> existing annotations are never good and why here:
> 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1480173.html

I can read the words, but have no idea what you're trying to say.