[ Back from travel, so trying to make sense of this series.. ]
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 7:33 PM Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I've been developing a tool for detecting deadlock possibilities by
> tracking wait/event rather than lock(?) acquisition order to try to
> cover all synchonization machanisms. It's done on v6.2-rc2.
Ugh. I hate how this adds random patterns like
if (timeout == MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT)
sdt_might_sleep_strong(NULL);
else
sdt_might_sleep_strong_timeout(NULL);
...
sdt_might_sleep_finish();
to various places, it seems so very odd and unmaintainable.
I also recall this giving a fair amount of false positives, are they all fixed?
Anyway, I'd really like the lockdep people to comment and be involved.
We did have a fairly recent case of "lockdep doesn't track page lock
dependencies because it fundamentally cannot" issue, so DEPT might fix
those kinds of missing dependency analysis. See
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000060d41f05f139aa44@xxxxxxxxxx/
for some context to that one, but at teh same time I would *really*
want the lockdep people more involved and acking this work.
Maybe I missed the email where you reported on things DEPT has found
(and on the lack of false positives)?
Linus
