linux-kernel - Re: 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]

Message-ID: <20070520195417.GB83@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Sun, 20 May 2007 23:54:17 +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: Re: Freezeable workqueues [Was: 2.6.22-rc1: Broken suspend on SMP with tifm]

On 05/15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Monday, 14 May 2007 23:48, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > So, in the long term, should we change this only user, or we think we better fix
> > freezeable wqs again?
> 
> Long term, I'd like to have freezable workqueues, so that people don't have to
> use "raw" kernel threads only because they need some synchronization with
> hibertnation/suspend.  Plus some cases in which workqueues are used by
> fs-related code make me worry.

OK, so we should fix them. It would be great to also fix the last known problem
as well (work->func() vs hotplug callback deadlocks).

I am a bit afraid of too many yes/no options for the freezer, a couple of naive
questions.

1. Can't we make all wqs freezable? I still can't see the reason to have both
   freezable and not freezable wqs.

2. Why do we need CPU_TASKS_FROZEN? Can't we change cpu-hotplug to always
   freeze tasks right now, without any additional changes?

   Any subsystem should handle correctly the case when _cpu_down() (say)
   is called with tasks_frozen == 1 anyway. So, why can't we simplify
   things and do

   	_cpu_down(int tasks_frozen)

 		if (!tasks_frozen)
 			freeze_processes();
 		...

  right now?

> [*] The problem is, though, that freezable workqueus have some potential to fail
> the freezer.  Namely, suppose task A calls flush_workqueue() on a freezable
> workqueue, finds some work items in there, inserts the barrier and waits for
> completion (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE).  In the meantime, TIF_FREEZE is set on
> the worker thread, which is then woken up and goes to the refrigerator.  Thus
> if A is not NOFREEZE, the freezing of tasks will fail (A must be a kernel
> thread for this to happen, but still).  Worse yet, if A is NOFREEZE, it will be
> blocked until the worker thread is woken up.

Yes, this is yet another dependency which freezer can't handle. Probably it is
better to ignore this problem for now.

> To avoid this, I think, we may need to redesign the freezer, so that freezable
> worker threads are frozen after all of the other kernel threads.

I doubt we can find a very clean way to do this. Besides, what if work->func()
does flush_workqueue(another_wq) ? How can we decide which wq to freeze first?

>                                                                   Additionally,
> we'd need to make a rule that NOFREEZE kernel threads must not call
> flush_workqueue() or cancel_work_sync() on freezable workqueues.

cancel_work_sync() is OK, it can be used safely even if workqueue is frozen.
flush_workqueue() and destroy_workqueue() are not.

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/