Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>]

Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>
>   - But what happens if kcryptd_crypt_write_convert_loop() calls
> INIT_WORK/queue_work twice?

Can't find this function. But "INIT_WORK + queue_work" twice is very
wrong of course.

Milan Broz wrote:
>
> Ok, then I have question: Is the following pseudocode correct
> (and problem is in lock validation which checks something
> already initialized for another queue) or reusing work_struct
> is not permitted from inside called work function ?
>
> (Note comment in code "It is permissible to free the struct
> work_struct from inside the function that is called from it".)
>
> struct work_struct work;
> struct workqueue_struct *a, *b;
>
> do_b(*work)
> {
>         /* do something else */
> }
>
> do_a(*work)
> {
>         /* do something */
>         INIT_WORK(&work, do_b);
>         queue_work(b, &work);
> }
>
>
> INIT_WORK(&work, do_a);
> queue_work(a, &work);

(just in case, in that particular case PREPARE_WORK() should be used)

INIT_WORK(w) can be used if we know that "w" is not pending, and nobody
else can write to this work (say, queue_work(w) or cancel_work_sync(w)).
So currently the code above should work correctly.

However, I'd say it is not correct, INIT_WORK() can throw out some debug
info for example, or the implementation could be changed.

I'm not sure about CONFIG_LOCKDEP (Johannes cc'ed). INIT_WORK() does
lockdep_init_map(->lockdep_map) but run_workqueue() has a local copy,
looks ok.

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/