lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep
From
Date
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 16:52 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Yes. And no other work (except a barrier) can run before the caller of
> wait_on_work() is woken.

Alright, thanks. Yes, then what you proposed makes a lot of sense, I'll
implement it.

> Aha, now I see where I was confused. Yes, we can't avoid the false positives
> with flush_workqueue().
>
> I hope this won't be a problem, because almost every usage of flush_workqueue()
> is pointless nowadays. So even if we have a false positive, it probably
> means the code needs cleanups anyway.
>
> But see below,

[...]

> If you are going to do this, may I suggest you to make 2 separate patches?
> Exactly because we can't avoid the false positives with flush_workqueue(),
> it would be nice if we have an option to revert the 2-nd patch if there are
> too many false positives (I hope this won't happen).

I've run this patch on my system for a few days now and only seen
exactly one warning; however, it's *not* actually a *false* positive,
it's a positive but it's also perfectly possible to deadlock if the
system is loaded more than one work item is stuck on the workqueue for
some reason. Say A takes L1 and B runs without locks, and then you flush
the workqueue under L1; you'll get a real deadlock when both A and B are
actually scheduled to run!

johannes
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-04 15:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans