![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL) |
Spotted atleast these problems:
1. run_workqueue()->work.func()->flush_work()->mutex_lock(workqueue_mutex) deadlocks if we are blocked in cleanup_workqueue_thread()->kthread_stop() for the same worker thread to exit. Looks possible in practice to me. Yes, this is the same (old) problem as we have/had with flush_workqueue(). We can convert flush_work() to use preempt_disable (this is not straightforward, but easy), or forbid to call flush_work() from work.func(). I think I noticed other problems of avoiding workqueue_mutex() in flush_work() ..don't recall the exact problem. 2.
CPU_DEAD->cleanup_workqueue_thread->(cwq->thread = NULL)->kthread_stop() .. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |___ Problematic Hmm... This should not be possible? cwq->thread != NULL on CPU_DEAD event. sure, cwq->thread != NULL at CPU_DEAD event. However cleanup_workqueue_thread() will set it to NULL and block in kthread_stop(), waiting for the kthread to finish run_workqueue and exit. If one of the work functions being run by run_workqueue() calls flush_workqueue()->flush_cpu_workqueue() now, flush_cpu_workqueue() can fail to recognize that "keventd is trying to flush its own queue" which can cause deadlocks. Now while we are blocked here, if a work->func() calls
flush_workqueue->flush_cpu_workqueue, we clearly cant identify that event
thread is trying to flush its own queue (cwq->thread == current test
fails) and hence we will deadlock.
Could you clarify? I believe cwq->thread == current test always works, we never "substitute" cwq->thread. The test fails in the window described above. A lock_cpu_hotplug(), or any other ability to block concurrent hotplug
operations from happening, in run_workqueue would have avoided both the above
races.
I still don't think this is a good idea. We also need is_cpu_down_waits_for_lock_cpu_hotplug() helper, otherwise we have a deadlock if work->func() sleeps and re-queues itself. Can you elaborate this a bit? Alternatively, for the second race, I guess we can avoid setting
cwq->thread = NULL in cleanup_workqueue_thread() till the thread has exited,
Yes, http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116818097927685, I believe we can do this later. This way workqueue will have almost zero interaction with cpu-hotplug, and cpu UP/DOWN event won't be delayed by sleeping work.func(). take_over_work() can go away, this also allows us to simplify things. I agree it minimizes the interactions. Maybe worth attempting. However I suspect it may not be as simple as it appears :) -- Regards, vatsa | ||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-01-08 16:35 [W:0.255 / U:9.450 seconds] ©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||