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 S1753218Ab0DAGC2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:02:28 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1944 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752942Ab0DAGCV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:02:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4BB437B8.9060802@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:05:44 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091001)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to	destroy_workqueue()
References: <20100331105534.5601.50813.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20100331112559.GA17747@redhat.com> <4BB408AF.4080908@redhat.com> <4BB41988.1030400@kernel.org> <4BB41C72.3090909@redhat.com> <4BB41DAE.3010605@kernel.org> <4BB420D6.7050401@redhat.com> <4BB42822.30607@kernel.org> <4BB42D05.4060207@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BB42D05.4060207@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Cong Wang wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 04/01/2010 01:28 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>> Hmmm... can you please try to see whether this circular locking
>>>> warning involving wq->lockdep_map is reproducible w/ the bonding
>>>> locking fixed?  I still can't see where wq -> cpu_add_remove_lock
>>>> dependency is created.
>>>>
>>> I thought this is obvious.
>>>
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>> void destroy_workqueue(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
>>> {
>>>         const struct cpumask *cpu_map = wq_cpu_map(wq);
>>>         int cpu;
>>>
>>>         cpu_maps_update_begin();        <----------------- Hold
>>> cpu_add_remove_lock here
>>>         spin_lock(&workqueue_lock);
>>>         list_del(&wq->list);
>>>         spin_unlock(&workqueue_lock);
>>>
>>>         for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_map)
>>>                 cleanup_workqueue_thread(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, 
>>> cpu)); <------ See below
>>>         cpu_maps_update_done();        <----------------- Release
>>> cpu_add_remove_lock here
>>>
>>> ...
>>> static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq)
>>> {
>>>         /*
>>>          * Our caller is either destroy_workqueue() or CPU_POST_DEAD,
>>>          * cpu_add_remove_lock protects cwq->thread.
>>>          */
>>>         if (cwq->thread == NULL)
>>>                 return;
>>>
>>>         lock_map_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map); <-------------- Lockdep
>>> complains here.
>>>         lock_map_release(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
>>> ...
>>
>> Yeap, the above is cpu_add_remove_lock -> wq->lockdep_map dependency.
>> I can see that but I'm failing to see where the dependency the other
>> direction is created.
>>
> 
> Hmm, it looks like I misunderstand lock_map_acquire()? From the changelog,
> I thought it was added to complain its caller is holding a lock when 
> invoking
> it, thus cpu_add_remove_lock is not an exception.
> 

Oh, I see, wq->lockdep_map is acquired again in run_workqueue(), so I was wrong. :)
I think you and Oleg are right, the lockdep warning is not irrelevant.

Sorry for the noise, ignore this patch please.

Thanks.