Hello,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 07:30:21PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> I don't see how? This is only relevant in ordered/single-threaded WQs,
> but even there it doesn't matter doesn't matter as explained?
>
> I'm actually seeing a false positive report from lockdep, because it
> *is* flushing, i.e. I'm running into the case of the work actually
> running, i.e. the "_sync" part of "cancel_work_sync()" is kicking in,
> but in that case a single-threaded WQ can't have anything executing
> *before* it, so we don't need to generate a lockdep dependency - and in
> fact don't *want* to create one to avoid the false positive.
>
> I'm not really sure what you think we might be missing? Am I missing
> some case where cancel_work_sync() can possibly deadlock? Apart from the
> issue I addressed in the second patch, obviously.
Ah, that was me being slow. I thought you were skipping the work's
lockdep_map. I can almost swear we had that before (the part you're
adding on the second patch). Right, fd1a5b04dfb8 ("workqueue: Remove
now redundant lock acquisitions wrt. workqueue flushes") removed it
because it gets propagated through wait_for_completion(). Did we miss
some cases with that change?
Thanks.
--
tejun
