Hi,
> > 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.
We explicitly need to use a copy of the lockdep_map for "locking" the
work struct as per the quoted comment. So as far as I can tell, what
INIT_WORK() is doing here is changing an at that point unused copy of
the lockdep map so I think it should be fine. Not sure about the other
fine points nor why you'd want this though :)
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep
- From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep
- Prev by Date: [PATCH -mm 3/3] ptrace_check_attach: remove unneeded ->signal != NULL check
- Next by Date: Re: gitweb: kernel versions in the history (feature request, probably)
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep
- Next by thread: [PATCH] debug_check_no_locks_freed: fix in_range() checks
- Index(es):
 |