On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:18:40AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, unconditinoally switching to recursive-read here would fail to
> > detect the actual deadlock on single-threaded workqueues, which do
>
> Do you mean it's
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:18:40AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, unconditinoally switching to recursive-read here would fail to
> > detect the actual deadlock on single-threaded workqueues, which do
>
> Do you mean it's
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The new completion/crossrelease annotations interact unfavourable with
> the extant flush_work()/flush_workqueue() annotations.
>
> The problem is that when a single work class does:
>
> wait_for_completion()
>
> and
>
>
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The new completion/crossrelease annotations interact unfavourable with
> the extant flush_work()/flush_workqueue() annotations.
>
> The problem is that when a single work class does:
>
> wait_for_completion()
>
> and
>
>
101 - 104 of 104 matches
Mail list logo