From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f71.google.com (mail-pg0-f71.google.com [74.125.83.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09806B0033 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:49:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id 194so15194036pgd.7 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from lgeamrelo11.lge.com (LGEAMRELO11.lge.com. [156.147.23.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b65si150137pfb.138.2017.01.18.04.49.46 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:49:47 -0800 (PST) From: "byungchul.park" References: <1481260331-360-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1481260331-360-16-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170118064230.GF15084@tardis.cn.ibm.com> <20170118105346.GL3326@X58A-UD3R> <20170118110317.GC6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170118115428.GM3326@X58A-UD3R> <20170118120757.GD6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 15/15] lockdep: Crossrelease feature documentation Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:49:44 +0900 Message-ID: <008201d27189$5811de70$08359b50$@lge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: ko Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: 'Peter Zijlstra' Cc: 'Boqun Feng' , mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com > -----Original Message----- > From: byungchul.park [mailto:byungchul.park@lge.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:15 PM > To: 'Peter Zijlstra' > Cc: 'Boqun Feng'; 'mingo@kernel.org'; 'tglx@linutronix.de'; > 'walken@google.com'; 'kirill@shutemov.name'; 'linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org'; 'linux-mm@kvack.org'; 'iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com'; > 'akpm@linux-foundation.org'; 'npiggin@gmail.com' > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 15/15] lockdep: Crossrelease feature documentation > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@infradead.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:08 PM > > To: Byungchul Park > > Cc: Boqun Feng; mingo@kernel.org; tglx@linutronix.de; walken@google.com; > > kirill@shutemov.name; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org; > > iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com; akpm@linux-foundation.org; npiggin@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/15] lockdep: Crossrelease feature > documentation > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 08:54:28PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 07:53:47PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:42:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > +Example 1: > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > > > > > > + --------- --------- > > > > > > > + mutext_lock A > > > > > > > + lock_page B > > > > > > > + lock_page B > > > > > > > + mutext_lock A /* DEADLOCK */ > > > > > > > > > > > > s/mutext_lock/mutex_lock > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > +Example 3: > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > > > > > > + --------- --------- > > > > > > > + mutex_lock A > > > > > > > + mutex_lock A > > > > > > > + mutex_unlock A > > > > > > > + wait_for_complete B /* DEADLOCK */ > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this part better be: > > > > > > > > > > > > CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > > > > > --------- --------- > > > > > > mutex_lock A > > > > > > mutex_lock A > > > > > > wait_for_complete B /* DEADLOCK */ > > > > > > mutex_unlock A > > > > > > > > > > > > , right? Because Y triggers DEADLOCK before X could run > > mutex_unlock(). > > > > > > > > > > There's no different between two examples. > > > > > > > > There is.. > > > > > > > > > No matter which one is chosen, mutex_lock A in CONTEXT X cannot be > > passed. > > > > > > > > But your version shows it does mutex_unlock() before CONTEXT Y does > > > > wait_for_completion(). > > > > > > > > The thing about these diagrams is that both columns are assumed to > > have > > > > the same timeline. > > > > > > X cannot acquire mutex A because Y already acquired it. > > > > > > In order words, all statements below mutex_lock A in X cannot run. > > > > But your timeline shows it does, which is the error that Boqun pointed > > out. > > I am sorry for not understanding what you are talking about. > > Do you mean that I should remove all statements below mutex_lock A in X? > > Or should I move mutex_unlock as Boqun said? What will change? Anyway, I will change it as he said even though I don't understand what is different between them. :/ But I am just curious. It would be appreciated if you answer my question. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org