[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: not allow recursion run_workqueue
    On 02/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
    > DEADLOCK EXAMPLE for explain my above option:
    > (work_func0() and work_func1() are work callback, and they
    > calls flush_workqueue())
    > CPU#0 CPU#1
    > run_workqueue() run_workqueue()
    > work_func0() work_func1()
    > flush_workqueue() flush_workqueue()
    > flush_cpu_workqueue(0) .
    > flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu#1) flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu#0)
    > waiting work_func1() in cpu#1 waiting work_func0 in cpu#0

    I am not sure. Note that when work_func0() calls run_workqueue(),
    it will clear cwq->current_work, so another flush_ on CPU#1 will
    not wait for work_func0, no?

    But anyway. Nobody argues, "if (cwq->thread == current) {...}" code in
    flush_cpu_workqueue() is bad and should die. Otrherwise, we should
    fix the lockdep warning ;)

    The only problem: if we still have the users of this hack, they will
    deadlock. But perhaps it is time to fix them.

    And, if it was not clear, I do agree with this change. And Peter
    seems to agree as well.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-05 18:07    [W:0.026 / U:29.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site