From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-f71.google.com (mail-yw1-f71.google.com [209.85.161.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F946B055B for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yw1-f71.google.com with SMTP id i82-v6so13507191ywb.13 for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 12:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from userp2130.oracle.com (userp2130.oracle.com. [156.151.31.86]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z133-v6si1023054ywb.239.2018.11.07.12.22.01 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Nov 2018 12:22:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:21:45 -0800 From: Daniel Jordan Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 01/13] ktask: add documentation Message-ID: <20181107202145.xvaq3pmqbzyekfan@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com> References: <20181105165558.11698-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> <20181105165558.11698-2-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> <20181106084911.GA22504@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181106203411.pdce6tgs7dncwflh@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com> <20181106205146.GB30490@mellanox.com> <20181107102752.GK9781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181107102752.GK9781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Daniel Jordan , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "aarcange@redhat.com" , "aaron.lu@intel.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "alex.williamson@redhat.com" , "bsd@redhat.com" , "darrick.wong@oracle.com" , "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" , "jwadams@google.com" , "jiangshanlai@gmail.com" , "mhocko@kernel.org" , "mike.kravetz@oracle.com" , "Pavel.Tatashin@microsoft.com" , "prasad.singamsetty@oracle.com" , "rdunlap@infradead.org" , "steven.sistare@oracle.com" , "tim.c.chen@intel.com" , "tj@kernel.org" , "vbabka@suse.cz" On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 11:27:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:51:54PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 12:34:11PM -0800, Daniel Jordan wrote: > > > > > > What isn't clear is if this calling thread is waiting or not. Only do > > > > this inheritance trick if it is actually waiting on the work. If it is > > > > not, nobody cares. > > > > > > The calling thread waits. Even if it didn't though, the inheritance trick > > > would still be desirable for timely completion of the job. > > > > Can you make lockdep aware that this is synchronous? > > > > ie if I do > > > > mutex_lock() > > ktask_run() > > mutex_lock() > > > > Can lockdep know that all the workers are running under that lock? > > > > I'm thinking particularly about rtnl_lock as a possible case, but > > there could also make some sense to hold the read side of the mm_sem > > or similar like the above. > > Yes, the normal trick is adding a fake lock to ktask_run and holding > that over the actual job. See lock_map* in flush_workqueue() vs > process_one_work(). I'll add that for the next version.