linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
To: "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
	"amir73il@gmail.com" <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	"linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	"oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>,
	"darrick.wong@oracle.com" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	"johannes.berg@intel.com" <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
	"byungchul.park@lge.com" <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"idryomov@gmail.com" <idryomov@gmail.com>,
	"tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
	"kernel-team@lge.com" <kernel-team@lge.com>,
	"david@fromorbit.com" <david@fromorbit.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/3] completion: Add support for initializing completion with lockdep_map
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 19:58:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1508529532.3029.15.camel@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710200829340.3083@nanos>

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 2022 bytes --]

On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:34 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Are there any completion objects for which the cross-release checking is
> > useful?
> 
> All of them by definition.

Sorry but I'm not sure that's the best possible answer. In my opinion
avoiding that completion objects have dependencies on other lock objects,
e.g. by avoiding to wait on a completion object while holding a mutex, is a
far superior strategy over adding cross-release checking to completion
objects. The former strategy namely makes it unnecessary to add
cross-release checking to completion objects because that strategy ensures
that these completion objects cannot get involved in a deadlock. The latter
strategy can lead to false positive deadlock reports by the lockdep code,
something none of us wants.

A possible alternative strategy could be to enable cross-release checking
only for those completion objects for which waiting occurs inside a critical
section.

> > Are there any wait_for_completion() callers that hold a mutex or
> > other locking object?
> 
> Yes, there are also cross completion dependencies. There have been such
> bugs and I expect more to be unearthed.
> 
> I really have to ask what your motiviation is to fight the lockdep coverage
> of synchronization objects tooth and nail?

As explained in another e-mail thread, unlike the lock inversion checking
performed by the <= v4.13 lockdep code, cross-release checking is a heuristic
that does not have a sound theoretical basis. The lock validator is an
important tool for kernel developers. It is important that it produces as few
false positives as possible. Since the cross-release checks are enabled
automatically when enabling lockdep, I think it is normal that I, as a kernel
developer, care that the cross-release checks produce as few false positives
as possible.

Bart.N‹§²æìr¸›zǧu©ž²Æ {\b­†éì¹»\x1c®&Þ–)îÆi¢žØ^n‡r¶‰šŽŠÝ¢j$½§$¢¸\x05¢¹¨­è§~Š'.)îÄÃ,yèm¶ŸÿÃ\f%Š{±šj+ƒðèž×¦j)Z†·Ÿ

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-20 19:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-18  9:38 Fix false positive by LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE Byungchul Park
2017-10-18  9:38 ` [RESEND PATCH 1/3] completion: Add support for initializing completion with lockdep_map Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 23:24   ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-20  6:14     ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-20  6:34     ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-20 19:58       ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2017-10-21  2:23         ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-22 14:34           ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-23  2:08             ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-25  7:07               ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-25 11:49                 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-18  9:38 ` [RESEND PATCH 2/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt workqueue flush Byungchul Park
2017-10-18  9:38 ` [RESEND PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Assign a lock_class per gendisk used for wait_for_completion() Byungchul Park
2017-10-18  9:59   ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-19  1:57     ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-18 14:29 ` Fix false positive by LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE Bart Van Assche
2017-10-19  1:57   ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-19 14:52     ` Bart Van Assche

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1508529532.3029.15.camel@wdc.com \
    --to=bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
    --cc=johannes.berg@intel.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).