From: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@primarydata.com>
To: "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
"jlayton@poochiereds.net" <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"jiangshanlai@gmail.com" <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
"anna.schumaker@netapp.com" <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>
Subject: Re: net/sunrpc: v4.14-rc4 lockdep warning
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:49:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1507744197.50316.3.camel@primarydata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171010171919.GO3301751@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 10:19 -0700, tj@kernel.org wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 04:48:57PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation. What I'm not really understanding here
> > though, is how the work item could be queued at all. We have a
> > wait_on_bit_lock() in xprt_destroy() that should mean the xprt-
> > > task_cleanup work item has completed running, and that it cannot
> > > be
> >
> > requeued.
> >
> > Is there a possibility that the flush_queue() might be triggered
> > despite the work item not being queued?
>
> Yeah, for sure. The lockdep annotations don't distinguish those
> cases and assume the worst case.
>
OK. Let's just remove that call to cancel_work_sync() then. As I said,
it should be redundant due to the wait_on_bit_lock().
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@primarydata.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-11 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-09 18:17 net/sunrpc: v4.14-rc4 lockdep warning Lorenzo Pieralisi
2017-10-09 18:32 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-10-10 14:03 ` tj
2017-10-10 16:48 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-10-10 17:19 ` tj
2017-10-11 17:49 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2017-10-16 13:34 ` Jan Glauber
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=1507744197.50316.3.camel@primarydata.com \
--to=trondmy@primarydata.com \
--cc=anna.schumaker@netapp.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--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