[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090206164649.GA24887@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:46:49 +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 02/06, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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?
>
> cwq->current_work is changed only when
> !list_empty(&cwq->worklist)
> in run_workqueue().
>
> so cwq->current_work may not be changed.
Ah, indeed.
Thanks for correcting me!
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