On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:17:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Each work of workqueue might run in a different context,
> > + * thanks to concurrency support of workqueue. So we have to
> > + * distinguish each work to avoid false positive.
> > + *
> > + * TODO: We can also add dependencies between two acquisitions
> > + * of different work_id, if they don't cause a sleep so make
> > + * the worker stalled.
> > + */
> > + unsigned int work_id;
>
> > +/*
> > + * Crossrelease needs to distinguish each work of workqueues.
> > + * Caller is supposed to be a worker.
> > + */
> > +void crossrelease_work_start(void)
> > +{
> > + if (current->xhlocks)
> > + current->work_id++;
> > +}
>
> So what you're trying to do with that 'work_id' thing is basically wipe
> the entire history when we're at the bottom of a context.
Sorry, but I do not understand what you are trying to say.
What I was trying to do with the 'work_id' is to distinguish between
different works, which will be used to check if history locks were held
in the same context as a release one.
> Which is a useful operation, but should arguably also be done on the
> return to userspace path. Any historical lock from before the current
> syscall is irrelevant.
Sorry. Could you explain it more?
>
> (And we should not be returning to userspace with locks held anyway --
> lockdep already has a check for that).
Yes right. We should not be returning to userspace without reporting it
in that case.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
