[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100225095349.GB10823@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:53:49 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Samu Onkalo <samu.p.onkalo@...ia.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] workqueues: change cancel_work_sync() to clear
work->data
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 09:20:31PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> In short: change cancel_work_sync(work) to mark this work as "never
> queued" upon return.
>
> When cancel_work_sync(work) succeeds, we know that this work can't be
> queued or running, and since we own WORK_STRUCT_PENDING nobody can change
> the bits in work->data under us. This means we can also clear the "cwq"
> part along with _PENDING bit lockless before return, unless the work is
> queued nobody can assume get_wq_data() is stable even under cwq->lock.
>
> This change can speedup the subsequent cancel/flush requests, and as
> Dmitry pointed out this simplifies the usage of work_struct's which
> can be queued on different workqueues. Consider this pseudo code from
> the input subsystem:
>
> struct workqueue_struct *WQ;
> struct work_struct *WORK;
>
> for (;;) {
> WQ = create_workqueue();
> ...
> if (condition())
> queue_work(WQ, WORK);
> ...
> cancel_work_sync(WORK);
> destroy_workqueue(WQ);
> }
>
> If condition() returns T and then F, cancel_work_sync() will crash the
> kernel because WORK->data still points to the already destroyed workqueue.
> With this patch the code like above becomes correct.
>
Very nice, thank you for making the change.
> Suggested-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> ---
>
> kernel/workqueue.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- wq/kernel/workqueue.c~1_CANCEL_CLEAR_WQ 2010-02-24 20:43:32.000000000 +0100
> +++ wq/kernel/workqueue.c 2010-02-24 20:55:53.000000000 +0100
> @@ -229,6 +229,16 @@ static inline void set_wq_data(struct wo
> atomic_long_set(&work->data, new);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Clear WORK_STRUCT_PENDING and the workqueue on which it was queued.
> + */
> +static inline void clear_wq_data(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags = *work_data_bits(work) &
> + (1UL << WORK_STRUCT_STATIC);
> + atomic_long_set(&work->data, flags);
> +}
> +
> static inline
> struct cpu_workqueue_struct *get_wq_data(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> @@ -671,7 +681,7 @@ static int __cancel_work_timer(struct wo
> wait_on_work(work);
> } while (unlikely(ret < 0));
>
> - work_clear_pending(work);
> + clear_wq_data(work);
> return ret;
> }
>
>
--
Dmitry
--
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