On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 01:28:31PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 03:04:14PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > Hmm... would it make sense to tie this to WQ_MEM_RECLAIM - ie. enable it > > > implicitly on workqueues w/ the flag set? > > > > I had considered this, and for a while I thought WQ_MEM_RECLAIM already > > did what I'm suggesting—especially since I’ve spotted bugs in drivers > > where I would have expected lockdep to catch them. > > > > In my opinion, this approach is better, but it has a broader kernel-wide > > scope and could potentially break some things. My subsequent patches > > will likely break one or two DRM drivers, so it might not be a concern > > to fix everything that breaks across the kernel. It's up to you which > > route we want to take here. > > Yeah, it is bothersome that WQ_MEM_RECLAIM doesn't currently have a way to > ensure compliance. I just didn't know about the lockdep mechanism. Can you
I agree this is the best route to ensure compliance. > please update the patch so that WQ_MEM_RECLAIM implicitly enables the > checking? > Sure, but a bunch of things immediately break—including a convoluted case in my driver. I can fix the kernel to the extent that my CI catches issues, and fix any obvious cases through manual inspection. However, I suspect that if we merge this, we'll be dealing with fallout throughout a kernel RC cycle. Matt > Thanks. > > -- > tejun
