From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation V3
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:04:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180717150439.GY2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180717142437.GA20286@lst.de>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:17:53PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> this series adds a strategic lockdep_assert_held to __wake_up_common
> >> to ensure callers really do hold the wait_queue_head lock when calling
> >> the unlocked wake_up variants. It turns out epoll did not do this
> >> for a fairly common path (hit all the time by systemd during bootup),
> >> so the second patch fixed this instance as well.
> >
> > I ran into these changes because of patch 1 getting rid of ep->lock. Is
> > there any reason why this series was never picked up?
>
> I'd love to see this merged, but I never heard back about it.
Seeing how it touched fs bits, I was expecting this to go through the
vfs tree; was that not the intended target?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-14 15:23 waitqueue lockdep annotation V3 Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-14 15:23 ` [PATCH 1/3] epoll: use the waitqueue lock to protect ep->wq Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-14 15:23 ` [PATCH 2/3] userfaultfd: use fault_wqh lock Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-17 7:10 ` Mike Rapoport
2017-12-14 15:23 ` [PATCH 3/3] sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is held in __wake_up_common Christoph Hellwig
2018-07-12 19:17 ` waitqueue lockdep annotation V3 Davidlohr Bueso
2018-07-17 14:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-07-17 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-07-17 15:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20180717150439.GY2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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