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 S1751641AbdLLFj3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:39:29 -0500
Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]:46278 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750731AbdLLFj1 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:39:27 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou4/jMgvDXaWYaMS6jjoANkURMUgJvyT0FMbO/dgqL/1vKaBjkLzMPaVdoShZmys16y4x/Tlw==
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:39:21 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        rostedt@rostedt.homelinux.com, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load
 balance console writes
Message-ID: <20171212053921.GA1392@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20171108102723.602216b1@gandalf.local.home>
 <20171124152857.ahnapnwmmsricunz@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20171124155816.pxp345ch4gevjqjm@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20171128014229.GA2899@X58A-UD3R>
 <20171208140022.uln4t5e5drrhnvvt@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171208140022.uln4t5e5drrhnvvt@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On (12/08/17 15:00), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > However, now that cross-release was introduces, lockdep can be applied
> > to semaphore operations. Actually, I have a plan to do that. I think it
> > would be better to make semaphore tracked with lockdep and remove all
> > these manual acquire() and release() here. What do you think about it?
> 
> IMHO, it would be great to add lockdep annotations into semaphore
> operations.

certain types of locks have no guaranteed lock-unlock ordering.
e.g. readers-writer locks, semaphores, etc.

for readers-writer lock we can easily have

CPU0		CPU1		CPU2		CPU3		CPU4
read_lock
		write_lock
		// sleep because
		// of CPU0
								read_lock
read_unlock			read_lock
				read_unlock	read_lock
						read_unlock
								read_unlock
								// wake up CPU1

so for CPU1 the lock was "locked" by CPU0 and "unlocked" by CPU4.

semaphore not necessarily has the mutual-exclusion property, because
its ->count is not required to be set to 1. in printk we use semaphore
with ->count == 1, but that's just an accident.

	-ss


p.s.
frankly, I don't see any "locking issues" in Steven's patch.