[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090127014651.GA13861@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:46:51 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] create workqueue threads only when needed
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>
> static void insert_work(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq,
> struct work_struct *work, struct list_head *head)
> {
> - trace_workqueue_insertion(cwq->thread, work);
> + trace_workqueue_insertion(cwq->thread, work, cwq->wq->singlethread);
>
> set_wq_data(work, cwq);
> /*
> @@ -148,6 +176,9 @@ static void __queue_work(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq,
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> + if (!cwq->thread)
> + create_wq_thread_late(cwq);
> +
[...snip...]
> +static void create_wq_thread_late_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct late_workqueue_creation_data *l;
> + struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + int err = 0;
> +
> + l = container_of(work, struct late_workqueue_creation_data, work);
> + cwq = l->cwq;
> +
> + if (is_wq_single_threaded(cwq->wq)) {
> + err = create_workqueue_thread(cwq, singlethread_cpu);
> + start_workqueue_thread(cwq, -1);
> + } else {
> + err = create_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
> + start_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
> + }
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(err);
> + kfree(l);
> +}
Let's suppose the workqueue was just created, and cwq->thared == NULL
on (say) CPU 0.
Then CPU 0 does
queue_work(wq, work1);
queue_work(wq, work2);
Both these calls will notice cwq->thread == NULL, both will schedule
the work wilth ->func = create_wq_thread_late_work.
The first work correctly creates cwq->thread, the second one creates
the new thread too and replaces cwq->thread? Now we have two threads
which run in parallel doing the same work, but the first thread is
"stealth", no?
> @@ -904,9 +967,12 @@ static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq)
> * checks list_empty(), and a "normal" queue_work() can't use
> * a dead CPU.
> */
> - trace_workqueue_destruction(cwq->thread);
> - kthread_stop(cwq->thread);
> - cwq->thread = NULL;
> +
> + if (cwq->thread) {
> + trace_workqueue_destruction(cwq->thread, cwq->wq->singlethread);
> + kthread_stop(cwq->thread);
> + cwq->thread = NULL;
> + }
cleanup_workqueue_thread() has already checked cwq->thread != NULL,
how can it become NULL ?
And let's suppose a user does:
wq = create_workqueue(...., when_needed => 1);
queue_work(wq, some_work);
destroy_workqueue(wq);
This can return before create_wq_thread_late() populates the necessary
cwq->thread. We can destroy/free workqueue with the pending work_structs,
no?
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