[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070115125401.GA134@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:54:01 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flush_cpu_workqueue: don't flush an empty ->worklist
On 01/15, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 02:54:10AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > How about the pseudo-code below?
>
> Some quick comments:
>
> - singlethread_cpu needs to be hotplug safe (broken currently)
Why? Could you explain?
> - Any reason why cpu_populated_map is not modified on CPU_DEAD?
Because CPU_DEAD/CPU_UP_CANCELED doesn't wait for cwq->thread to exit.
cpu_populated_map never shrinks, it only grows on CPU_UP_PREPARE.
We can change this, but it needs some more code, and I am not sure
we need it. Note that a "false" bit in cpu_populated_map only means
that flush_work/flush_workqueue/destroy_workqueu will do lock/unlock
of cwq->lock, nothing more.
> - I feel more comfortable if workqueue_cpu_callback were to take
> workqueue_mutex in LOCK_ACQ and release it in LOCK_RELEASE
> notifications.
The whole purpose of this change to avoid this!
Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> Oh! I was refering to the other set of workqueue deadlock woes. The
> ones caused when subsystems (like cpufreq) try to create/destroy
> workqueue from the cpuhotplug callback path.
>
> Creation/destruction of workqueue requires us to take workqueue_mutex,
> which would have already been taken during CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE.
With this change workqueue_mutex is only taken to protect workqueues
list, why should we hold it for (say) CPU_UP_PREPARE->CPU_ONLINE path?
> This will provide stable access to cpu_populated_map
> to functions like __create_workqueue.
I think this is not needed.
> Finally, I wonder if these changes will be unnecessary if we move to
> process freezer based hotplug locking ...
This change ir not strictly necessary but imho make the code better and
shrinks .text by 379 bytes.
But I believe that freezer will change nothing for workqueue. We still
need take_over_work(), and hacks like migrate_sequence. And no, CPU_DEAD
can't just thaw cwq->thread which was bound to the dead CPU to complete
kthread_stop(), we should thaw all processes.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists