[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090121124514.GA13404@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:45:14 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: not allow recursion run_workqueue
On 01/21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 17:42 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > 1) lockdep will complain when recursion run_workqueue
> > 2) works is not run orderly when recursion run_workqueue
> >
> > 3) BUG!
> > We use recursion run_workqueue to hidden deadlock when
> > keventd trying to flush its own queue.
> >
> > It's bug. When flush_workqueue()(nested in a work callback)returns,
> > the workqueue is not really flushed, the sequence statement of
> > this work callback will do some thing bad.
> >
> > So we should not allow workqueue trying to flush its own queue.
>
> The patch looks good, but I'm utterly failing to comprehend this
> changelog. What exactly can go wrong (other than the obvious too deep
> nest and the fact that lockdep will complain)?
I am confused too.
But the change itself looks good to me, I am only worried if we still
have the callers of flush() from within work->func().
> + WARN_ON(cwq->thread == current);
probably BUG_ON() is better, we are going to deadlock in this case.
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