On 10/24, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
(reordered)
> With get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus(), we can eliminate
> the workqueue_mutex and reintroduce the workqueue_lock,
> which is a spinlock which serializes the accesses to the
> workqueues list.
This change is obviously good, can't it go into the previous patch?
Because,
> Solution is not to cleanup the worker thread. Instead let it remain
> even after the cpu goes offline. Since no one can queue any work
> on an offlined cpu, this thread will be forever sleeping, untill
> someone onlines the cpu.
I still think this patch is questionable. Please look at my previous
response http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119262203729543
In short: with this patch it is not possible to guarantee that work->fun()
will run on the correct CPU.
> static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq, int cpu)
> {
> /*
> - * Our caller is either destroy_workqueue() or CPU_DEAD,
> - * workqueue_mutex protects cwq->thread
> + * Our caller is destroy_workqueue(). So warn on a double
> + * destroy.
> */
> - if (cwq->thread == NULL)
> + if (cwq->thread == NULL) {
> + WARN_ON(1);
Looks wrong. It is possible that cwq->thread == NULL, because currently we
never "shrink" cpu_populated_map.
> cleanup_workqueue_thread() in the CPU_DEAD and CPU_UP_CANCELLED path
> will cause a deadlock if the worker thread is executing a work item
> which is blocked on get_online_cpus(). This will lead to a irrecoverable
> hang.
Yes. But there is nothing new. Currently, work->func() can't share the locks
with cpu_down's patch. Not only only it can't take workqueue_mutex, it can't
take any other lock which could be taken by notifier callbacks, etc.
Can't we ignore this problem, at least for now? I believe we need intrusive
changes to solve this problem correctly. Perhaps I am wrong, of course, but
I don't see a simple solution.
Another option. Note that get_online_cpus() does more than just pinning
cpu maps, actually it blocks hotplug entirely. Now let's look at
schedule_on_each_cpu(), for example. It doesn't need to block hotplug,
it only needs a stable cpu_online_map.
Suppose for a moment that _cpu_down() does cpu_hotplug_done() earlier,
right after __cpu_die(cpu) which removes CPU from the map (yes, this
is wrong, I know). Now, we don't need to change workqueue_cpu_callback(),
work->func() can use get_online_cpus() without fear of deadlock.
So, can't we introduce 2 nested rw locks? The first one blocks cpu hotplug
(like get_online_cpus does currently), the second one just pins cpu maps.
I think most users needs only this, not more.
What do you think?
(Gautham, I apologize in advance, can't be responsive till weekend).
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]
