[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch, minor] workqueue: consistently use 'err' in __create_workqueue_key()
2008/7/29 Oleg Nesterov <>:
> On 07/28, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>> I guess error handling is a bit illogical in __create_workqueue_key()
> Please see below,
>> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> cwq = init_cpu_workqueue(wq, cpu);
>> - if (err || !cpu_online(cpu))
>> + if (!cpu_online(cpu))
>> continue;
>> err = create_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
>> + if (err)
>> + break;
> This was done on purpose. The code above does init_cpu_workqueue(cpu)
> for each possible cpu, even if we fail to create cwq->thread for some
> cpu. This way destroy_workqueue() (called below) shouldn't worry about
> the partially initialized workqueues.
> The patch above should work, but it assumes that destroy_workqueue()
> must do nothing with cwq if cwq->thread == NULL, this is not very
> robust.

Yes, I saw this test and that's why I decided that destroy_workqueue()
is able (designed) to deal with partially-initialized objects.

Note, for the race scenario with cpu-hotplug (which I've overlooked
indeed) which you describe below, we also seem to depend on the same
"cwq->thread == NULL" test in cleanup_workqueue_thread() as follows:

assume, cpu_down(cpu) -> CPU_POST_DEAD -> cleanup_workqueue_thread()
gets called for a partially initialized workqueue for 'cpu' for which
create_workqueue_thread() has previously failed in

> And, more importantly. Let's suppose __create_workqueue_key() does
> "break" and drops cpu_add_remove_lock. Then we race with cpu-hotplug
> which can hit the uninitialized cwq. This is fixable, but needs other
> complication.

And I'd say this behavior (of having a partially-created object
visible to the outside world) is not that robust. e.g. the
aforementioned race would be eliminated if we place a wq on the global
list only when it's been successfully initialized.

For this goal, the cleanup path in __create_workqueue_key() would need
to be altered but overall, I think it'd make the code a bit more

[ just my 0.02, maybe I'm missing something again ;-) ]

> Oleg.

Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-29 14:01    [W:0.050 / U:7.740 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site