lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.
    On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:29:15 +1030
    Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

    > On Friday 30 January 2009 17:00:42 Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:33:53 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Thursday 29 January 2009 12:42:05 Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:13:32 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > On Thursday 29 January 2009 06:14:40 Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > > > > It's vulnerable to the same deadlock, I think? Suppose we have:
    > > > > > ...
    > > > > > > - A calls work_on_cpu() and takes woc_mutex.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > - Before function_which_takes_L() has started to execute, task B takes L
    > > > > > > then calls work_on_cpu() and task B blocks on woc_mutex.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > - Now function_which_takes_L() runs, and blocks on L
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Agreed, but now it's a fairly simple case. Both sides have to take lock L, and both have to call work_on_cpu.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Workqueues are more generic and widespread, and an amazing amount of stuff gets called from them. That's why I felt uncomfortable with removing the one known problematic caller.
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > hm. it's a bit of a timebomb.
    > > > >
    > > > > y'know, the original way in which acpi-cpufreq did this is starting to
    > > > > look attractive. Migrate self to that CPU then just call the dang
    > > > > function. Slow, but no deadlocks (I think)?
    > > >
    > > > Just buggy. What random thread was it mugging? If there's any path where
    > > > it's not a kthread, what if userspace does the same thing at the same time?
    > > > We risk running on the wrong cpu, *then* overriding userspace when we restore
    > > > it.
    > >
    > > hm, Ok, not unficable but not pleasant.
    > >
    > > > In general these cpumask games are a bad idea.
    > >
    > > So we still don't have any non-buggy proposal.
    >
    > I disagree about the avoiding-workqueue one being buggy.
    >

    I assume you're talking about the patch I looked at a couple of days ago.

    It's vulnerable to the same deadlock as work_on_cpu() has always been.

    Just as an example, take a look at allocate_threshold_blocks(). That
    function way down in the innards of x86 has blotted out large amounts of
    kernel code, so that code can now not use work_on_cpu(). Anything which
    happens inside ext3 commit (the entire block layer and all drivers
    underneath it). Large lumps of networking code. Parts of the page
    allocator and the VFS which I haven't started to think about yet.

    > The same logic
    > applies to any simple callback function.

    Not! The difference here is the queueing and serialisation which
    introduces dependencies between unrelated subsystems which happen to
    use this piece of core infrastructure.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-30 23:21    [W:0.027 / U:0.260 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site