[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080729110250.GA177@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:02:50 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch, minor] workqueue: consistently use 'err' in __create_workqueue_key()
On 07/28, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>
> I guess error handling is a bit illogical in __create_workqueue_key()
Please see below,
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> cwq = init_cpu_workqueue(wq, cpu);
> - if (err || !cpu_online(cpu))
> + if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> continue;
> err = create_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
> + if (err)
> + break;
This was done on purpose. The code above does init_cpu_workqueue(cpu)
for each possible cpu, even if we fail to create cwq->thread for some
cpu. This way destroy_workqueue() (called below) shouldn't worry about
the partially initialized workqueues.
The patch above should work, but it assumes that destroy_workqueue()
must do nothing with cwq if cwq->thread == NULL, this is not very
robust.
And, more importantly. Let's suppose __create_workqueue_key() does
"break" and drops cpu_add_remove_lock. Then we race with cpu-hotplug
which can hit the uninitialized cwq. This is fixable, but needs other
complication.
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