Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 06:33:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:21:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:51:00PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > That wouldn't work. That annotation is to help find deadlocks like:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 	mutex_lock(&A)
> > > > 				<work>
> > > > 				mutex_lock(&A)
> > > > 
> > > > 	flush_work(&work)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I meant:
> > > 
> > >  	mutex_lock(&A)
> > >  				<work>
> > >  				lockdep_map_acquire_read(&work)
> > >  				mutex_lock(&A)
> > > 
> > >  	lockdep_map_acquire(&work)
> > >  	flush_work(&work)
> > > 
> > > I mean it can still be detected with a read acquisition in work.
> > > Am I wrong?
> > 
> > Think so, although there's something weird with read locks that I keep
> > forgetting. But I'm not sure it'll actually solve the problem. But I can
> 
> I mean, read acquisitions are nothing but ones allowing read ones to be
> re-acquired legally, IOW, we want to check entrance of flush_work() and
> works, not between works. That's why I suggested to use read ones in work
> in that case.

Does seem to work.