On 01/08, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 06:56:38PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > 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.
Ah, missed you point, thanks. Yet another old problem which was not introduced
by recent changes. And yet another indication we should avoid kthread_stop()
on CPU_DEAD event :) I believe this is easy to fix, but need to think more.
> > > 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?
If work->func() re-queues itself, run_workqueue() never returns because
->worklist is never empty. This means we should somehow check and detect
that cpu-hotplug blocked because we hold lock_cpu_hotplug(). In that case
run_workqueue() should return, and drop the lock. This will complicate
worker_thread/run_workqueue further.
run_workqueue:
while (!list_empty(&cwq->worklist)) {
...
// We hold lock_cpu_hotplug(), cpu event can't make
// progress.
...
}
> > 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 :)
Yes, that is why this patch only does the first step: flush_workqueue() checks
the dead CPUs as well, this change is minimal.
Do you see any problems this patch adds?
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
