lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] workqueue: lock cwq access in drain_workqueue
Hello,

On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 07:00:53PM -0400, Thomas Tuttle wrote:
> Take cwq->gcwq->lock to avoid racing between drain_workqueue checking
> to make sure the workqueues are empty and cwq_dec_nr_in_flight
> decrementing and then incrementing nr_active when it activates a
> delayed work.

Nice catch. Just few minor nits below.

> We discovered this when a corner case in one of our drivers resulted in
> us trying to destroy a workqueue in which the remaining work would
> always requeue itself again in the same workqueue. We would hit this
> race condition and trip the BUG_ON on workqueue.c:3080.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Tuttle <ttuttle@chromium.org>
> ---
> Updated to use bool instead of int (d'oh), and CCed maintainer.
>
> kernel/workqueue.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 25fb1b0..0c2e585 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -2412,8 +2412,14 @@ reflush:
>
> for_each_cwq_cpu(cpu, wq) {
> struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = get_cwq(cpu, wq);
> + bool cwq_flushed;

Maybe "drained" would be better?

> - if (!cwq->nr_active && list_empty(&cwq->delayed_works))
> + spin_lock_irq(&cwq->gcwq->lock);
> + cwq_flushed = !cwq->nr_active
> + && list_empty(&cwq->delayed_works);

and then this should fit inside 80 column, right?

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-11 03:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans