On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:24:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:51:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:12:56PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > +static inline void wait_for_completion(struct completion *x)
> > > +{
> > > + complete_acquire(x);
> > > + __wait_for_completion(x);
> > > + complete_release(x);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void wait_for_completion_io(struct completion *x)
> > > +{
> > > + complete_acquire(x);
> > > + __wait_for_completion_io(x);
> > > + complete_release(x);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int wait_for_completion_interruptible(struct completion *x)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > + complete_acquire(x);
> > > + ret = __wait_for_completion_interruptible(x);
> > > + complete_release(x);
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int wait_for_completion_killable(struct completion *x)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > + complete_acquire(x);
> > > + ret = __wait_for_completion_killable(x);
> > > + complete_release(x);
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> >
> > I don't understand, why not change __wait_for_common() ?
>
> That is what is wrong with the below?
>
> Yes, it adds acquire/release to the timeout variants too, but I don't
Yes, I didn't want to involve them in lockdep play which reports _deadlock_
warning since it's not a dependency causing a deadlock.
> see why we should exclude those, and even if we'd want to do that, it
> would be trivial:
>
> bool timo = (timeout == MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
>
> if (!timo)
> complete_acquire(x);
>
> /* ... */
>
> if (!timo)
> complete_release(x);
Yes, frankly I wanted to use this.. but skip it.
> But like said, I think we very much want to annotate waits with timeouts
> too. Hitting the max timo doesn't necessarily mean we'll make fwd
> progress, we could be stuck in a loop doing something else again before
> returning to wait.
In that case, it should be detected by other dependencies which makes
problems, not the dependency by wait_for_complete().
> Also, even if we'd make fwd progress, hitting that max timo is still not
> desirable.
It's not desirable but it's not a dependency causing a deadlock, so I did
not want to _deadlock_ warning in that cases.. I didn't want to abuse
lockdep reports..
However, it's OK if you think it's worth warning even in that cases.
Thank you very much,
Byungchul
--
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>
