From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752296AbdLFXvn (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:51:43 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:33603 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751711AbdLFXvm (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:51:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 00:51:41 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jason Baron Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation Message-ID: <20171206235141.GB17876@lst.de> References: <20171130125050.1faba3f06fc572846f792f17@linux-foundation.org> <20171130221126.GA31795@lst.de> <21c34413-d178-fda0-91b2-6ab02c6d5a06@akamai.com> <20171201171102.GA20072@lst.de> <57869c0c-764c-ff99-93cd-8020f8ceea9e@akamai.com> <20171201220239.GA32542@lst.de> <2fd9dc6b-9201-67db-b81e-a783daf0ce50@akamai.com> <20171201230336.GA4446@lst.de> <1a5d4610-b84e-ba29-b5bb-b80e19fc17b7@akamai.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1a5d4610-b84e-ba29-b5bb-b80e19fc17b7@akamai.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:24:34AM -0500, Jason Baron wrote: > On 12/01/2017 06:03 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:34:50PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote: > >> hmmm...I'm not sure how this suggestion would change the locking rules > >> from what we currently have. Right now, we use ep->lock, if we remove > >> that and use ep->wq->lock instead, there is just a 1-to-1 mapping there > >> that has not changed, since ep->wq->lock currently is completely not > >> being used. > > > > True. The patch below survives the amazing complex booting and starting > > systemd with lockdep enabled test. Do we have something resembling a > > epoll test suite? > > > > I don't think we have any in the kernel tree proper (other than some > selftests using epoll) but there are tests in ltp and some performance > tests such as: > > http://linux-scalability.org/epoll/epoll-test.c That one just seems to keep running until interrupted. I've run it for a while and it seems fine, but I doesn't seem to get any ok/failed kind of status. > http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/pipetest.c Seems to work fine as well, so I'm going to resend the updated patch.