linux-kernel - Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2007 20:55:09 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
	Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>, Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm]

Long. Please read.

On 05/14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> I think I have solved this particular problem without any locking:

Rafael, I am afraid we are making too much noise, and this may confuse Alex
and Andrew.

First, we should decide how to fix the bug we have in 2.6.22. I prefer a simple
"make freezeable workqueues singlethread" I sent. It was acked by Alex, it is
simple, and it is also good because tifm doesn't need multithreaded wq anyway.

I'll comment the patch you sent below, but for a start....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys, let's have a plan !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not understand what's going on. With or without recent changes in workqueue.c
multithreaded freezeable workqueues were broken by other changes in suspend.

It was decided we don't need them, they should go away. We even had a patch
which removed freezeable workqueues (multithreaded or not) completely. But it
conflicted with other changes in -mm, so it was deleted, and then forgotten.

I never understood why do we need freezeable workqueues. Is they needed to
synchronize with suspend? In that case, shouldn't we have some form of
notification wich allows the driver to cancel the work which should not run
at suspend time?


OK, so you think we should re-introduce them. What about incoming CPU-hotplug
changes? The goal was - again! - remove the "singlethread" parameter, make
them all freezeable, and freeze all processes to handle CPU_DEAD. In that
case we don't have any problems, we can re-introduce take_over_work() without
migrate_sequence this patch adds.

So.
	- Do we need freezeable workqueues ?

	- Do we need multithreaded freezeable workqueues ?

	- Do we need them for 2.6.22 ?

	- Should we wait for CPU-hotplug changes, or we should
	  re-introduce them right now ?


> --- linux-2.6.22-rc1.orig/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc1/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ struct workqueue_struct {
>  	const char *name;
>  	int singlethread;
>  	int freezeable;		/* Freeze threads during suspend */
> +	atomic_t work_sw;	/* Used to indicate that some work has been
> +				 * moved from one CPU to another
> +				 */
>  };

"work_sw" should not be atomic, and since the race is _very_ unlikely it
could be global. We had such a thing, it was called "migrate_sequence" and
it was removed.

It didn't work, but it _can_ work now because we have cpu_populated_map.
However, this needs more thinking, because it breaks cancel_work_sync()
in a very subtle way.

> +static void take_over_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq, unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu);
> +	struct list_head list;
> +	struct work_struct *work;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irq(&cwq->lock);
> +	list_replace_init(&cwq->worklist, &list);
> +
> +	if (!list_empty(&list)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Tell flush_workqueue() that it should repeat the loop over
> +		 * CPUs
> +		 */
> +		atomic_inc(&wq->work_sw);
> +		while (!list_empty(&list)) {
> +			printk("Taking work for %s\n", wq->name);
> +			work = list_entry(list.next, struct work_struct, entry);
> +			list_del(&work->entry);
> +			__queue_work(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq,
> +					smp_processor_id()), work);
> +		}
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_irq(&cwq->lock);
> +}
> +

Suppose that we have some pending WORK1 on CPU 0 which needs some LOCK.

We take this LOCK and call cancel_work_sync(WORK2) which is running on CPU 1.
cancel_work_sync() inserts a barrier after WORK2 and waits for completion.

WORK2->func() completes.

freezer comes. cwq->thread notices TIF_FREEZE and goes to refrigerator before
executing that barrier.

CPU_DEAD_FROZEN(cpu == 1) moves that barrier to CPU 0.

thaw_processes().

DEADLOCK.

We hold the LOCK and sleep waiting for the completion of that barrier.
But there is WORK1 on queue which runs first, and needs this LOCK to
complete.

> @@ -819,20 +860,31 @@ static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_callb
>
> +		case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
> +			if (wq->freezeable) {
> +				take_over_work(wq, cpu);
> +				thaw_process(cwq->thread);
> +			}
> +			cleanup_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
> +			break;

If we have take_over_work() we should use it for any workqueue,
freezeable or not. Otherwise this is just a mess, imho.

Rafael, this is tricky. Probably we can fix this, but this needs more
changes. I can _try_ to do this, but not now (unless we think we need
freezeable workqueues for 2.6.22).

I have other clenaups for workqueues, but I'd prefer to do nothing
except bugfixes right now. A lot of non-reviewed intrusive changes
were merged. They all need testing.

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/