Re: [PATCH v11 14/26] locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplus: Use a weaker annotation in AP thread

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 14/26] locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplus: Use a weaker annotation in AP thread
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:10:42 +0900
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kernel_team@xxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, will@xxxxxxxxxx, rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx, joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sashal@xxxxxxxxxx, daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx, duyuyang@xxxxxxxxx, johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx, tj@xxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, amir73il@xxxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kernel-team@xxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx, minchan@xxxxxxxxxx, hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx, vdavydov.dev@xxxxxxxxx, sj@xxxxxxxxxx, jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx, dennis@xxxxxxxxxx, cl@xxxxxxxxx, penberg@xxxxxxxxxx, rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx, vbabka@xxxxxxx, ngupta@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxx, jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx, dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, djwong@xxxxxxxxxx, dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rodrigosiqueiramelo@xxxxxxxxx, melissa.srw@xxxxxxxxx, hamohammed.sa@xxxxxxxxx, 42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx, chris.p.wilson@xxxxxxxxx, gwan-gyeong.mun@xxxxxxxxx, max.byungchul.park@xxxxxxxxx, boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx, longman@xxxxxxxxxx, hdanton@xxxxxxxx, her0gyugyu@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87il3ggfz9.ffs@tglx>
References: <20240124115938.80132-1-byungchul@sk.com> <20240124115938.80132-15-byungchul@sk.com> <87il3ggfz9.ffs@tglx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Furthermore, now that Dept was introduced, false positive alarms was
> > reported by that. Replaced it with try lock annotation.
> 
> I still have zero idea what this is about.

Lockdep is working on lock/unlock, while dept is working on wait/event.

Two are similar but strickly speaking, different in what to track.

	Byungchul

References:
- [PATCH v11 00/26] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)
  - From: Byungchul Park
- [PATCH v11 14/26] locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplus: Use a weaker annotation in AP thread
  - From: Byungchul Park
- Re: [PATCH v11 14/26] locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplus: Use a weaker annotation in AP thread
  - From: Thomas Gleixner

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/6] tracing: Replace memcpy() with __get_task_comm()
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] mm: multi-gen LRU: ignore non-leaf pmd_young for force_scan=true
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v11 14/26] locking/lockdep, cpu/hotplus: Use a weaker annotation in AP thread
Next by thread: [PATCH v11 15/26] dept: Apply sdt_might_sleep_{start,end}() to dma fence wait
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux ARM Kernel] [Linux ARM] [Linux Omap] [Fedora ARM] [IETF Annouce] [Bugtraq] [Linux OMAP] [Linux MIPS] [eCos] [Asterisk Internet PBX] [Linux API]