1 files changed, 22 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 8ad214dc15a9..c0331891dec1 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -2093,7 +2093,28 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock)
 
         lock_map_acquire(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
         lock_map_acquire(&lockdep_map);
-        crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC);
+        /*
+         * Strictly speaking we should do start(PROC) without holding any
+         * locks, that is, before these two lock_map_acquire()'s.
+         *
+         * However, that would result in:
+         *
+         *   A(W1)
+         *   WFC(C)
+         *              A(W1)
+         *              C(C)
+         *
+         * Which would create W1->C->W1 dependencies, even though there is no
+         * actual deadlock possible. There are two solutions, using a
+         * read-recursive acquire on the work(queue) 'locks', but this will then
+         * hit the lockdep limitation on recursive locks, or simly discard
+         * these locks.
+         *
+         * AFAICT there is no possible deadlock scenario between the
+         * flush_work() and complete() primitives (except for single-threaded
+         * workqueues), so hiding them isn't a problem.
+         */
+        crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC, true);
         trace_workqueue_execute_start(work);
         worker->current_func(work);
         /*