[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090205170156.GA25517@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:01:56 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: not allow recursion run_workqueue
On 02/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> DEADLOCK EXAMPLE for explain my above option:
>
> (work_func0() and work_func1() are work callback, and they
> calls flush_workqueue())
>
> CPU#0 CPU#1
> run_workqueue() run_workqueue()
> work_func0() work_func1()
> flush_workqueue() flush_workqueue()
> flush_cpu_workqueue(0) .
> flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu#1) flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu#0)
> waiting work_func1() in cpu#1 waiting work_func0 in cpu#0
>
> DEADLOCK!
I am not sure. Note that when work_func0() calls run_workqueue(),
it will clear cwq->current_work, so another flush_ on CPU#1 will
not wait for work_func0, no?
But anyway. Nobody argues, "if (cwq->thread == current) {...}" code in
flush_cpu_workqueue() is bad and should die. Otrherwise, we should
fix the lockdep warning ;)
The only problem: if we still have the users of this hack, they will
deadlock. But perhaps it is time to fix them.
And, if it was not clear, I do agree with this change. And Peter
seems to agree as well.
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