lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to destroy_workqueue()
Cong Wang wrote:
> Cong Wang wrote:
>> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On 04/01/2010 01:28 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>>> Hmmm... can you please try to see whether this circular locking
>>>>> warning involving wq->lockdep_map is reproducible w/ the bonding
>>>>> locking fixed? I still can't see where wq -> cpu_add_remove_lock
>>>>> dependency is created.
>>>>>
>>>> I thought this is obvious.
>>>>
>>>> Here it is:
>>>>
>>>> void destroy_workqueue(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
>>>> {
>>>> const struct cpumask *cpu_map = wq_cpu_map(wq);
>>>> int cpu;
>>>>
>>>> cpu_maps_update_begin(); <----------------- Hold
>>>> cpu_add_remove_lock here
>>>> spin_lock(&workqueue_lock);
>>>> list_del(&wq->list);
>>>> spin_unlock(&workqueue_lock);
>>>>
>>>> for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_map)
>>>> cleanup_workqueue_thread(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq,
>>>> cpu)); <------ See below
>>>> cpu_maps_update_done(); <----------------- Release
>>>> cpu_add_remove_lock here
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq)
>>>> {
>>>> /*
>>>> * Our caller is either destroy_workqueue() or CPU_POST_DEAD,
>>>> * cpu_add_remove_lock protects cwq->thread.
>>>> */
>>>> if (cwq->thread == NULL)
>>>> return;
>>>>
>>>> lock_map_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map); <--------------
>>>> Lockdep
>>>> complains here.
>>>> lock_map_release(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Yeap, the above is cpu_add_remove_lock -> wq->lockdep_map dependency.
>>> I can see that but I'm failing to see where the dependency the other
>>> direction is created.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, it looks like I misunderstand lock_map_acquire()? From the
>> changelog,
>> I thought it was added to complain its caller is holding a lock when
>> invoking
>> it, thus cpu_add_remove_lock is not an exception.
>>
>
> Oh, I see, wq->lockdep_map is acquired again in run_workqueue(), so I
> was wrong. :)
> I think you and Oleg are right, the lockdep warning is not irrelevant.
>

Oops, typo, I meant "is irrelevant." ;)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-01 08:07    [W:0.035 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site