linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 20/43] workqueue: reimplement work flushing using linked works

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B8C00BB.4090500@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:00:27 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
	awalls@...ix.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
	johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/43] workqueue: reimplement work flushing using	linked
 works

Hello,

On 03/01/2010 11:53 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> +static void move_linked_works(struct work_struct *work, struct list_head *head,
>> +			      struct work_struct **nextp)
>> +{
>> ...
>> +	work = list_entry(work->entry.prev, struct work_struct, entry);
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe_continue(work, n, NULL, entry) {
> 
> list_for_each_entry_safe_from(work) ? It doesn't need to move this
> work back.

Yeap, that will be prettier.  I used _continue there thinking continue
will step from the current one and after finding out that it didn't, I
rewound work not knowing about _from.  Will update.

>> @@ -680,7 +734,27 @@ static int worker_thread(void *__worker)
>>  		if (kthread_should_stop())
>>  			break;
>>
>> -		run_workqueue(worker);
>> +		spin_lock_irq(&cwq->lock);
>> +
>> +		while (!list_empty(&cwq->worklist)) {
>> +			struct work_struct *work =
>> +				list_first_entry(&cwq->worklist,
>> +						 struct work_struct, entry);
>> +
>> +			if (likely(!(*work_data_bits(work) &
>> +				     WORK_STRUCT_LINKED))) {
>> +				/* optimization path, not strictly necessary */
>> +				process_one_work(worker, work);
>> +				if (unlikely(!list_empty(&worker->scheduled)))
>> +					process_scheduled_works(worker);
>> +			} else {
>> +				move_linked_works(work, &worker->scheduled,
>> +						  NULL);
>> +				process_scheduled_works(worker);
>> +			}
>> +		}
> 
> So. If the next pending work W doesn't have WORK_STRUCT_LINKED,
> it will be executed first, then we flush ->scheduled.
> 
> But,
> 
>>  static void insert_wq_barrier(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq,
>> -			struct wq_barrier *barr, struct list_head *head)
>> +			      struct wq_barrier *barr,
>> +			      struct work_struct *target, struct worker *worker)
>>  {
>> ...
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If @target is currently being executed, schedule the
>> +	 * barrier to the worker; otherwise, put it after @target.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (worker)
>> +		head = worker->scheduled.next;
> 
> this is the "target == current_work" case,
> 
>> -	insert_work(cwq, &barr->work, head, work_color_to_flags(WORK_NO_COLOR));
>> +	insert_work(cwq, &barr->work, head,
>> +		    work_color_to_flags(WORK_NO_COLOR) | linked);
>>  }
> 
> and in this case we put this barrier at the head of ->scheduled list.
> 
> This means, this barrier will run after that work W, not before it?

Yes, the barrier will run after the target work as it should.

> Hmm. And what if there are no pending works but ->current_work == target ?
> Again, we add the barrier to ->scheduled, but in this case worker_thread()
> can't even notice ->scheduled is not empty because it only checks ->worklist?

A worker always checks ->scheduled after a work is finished.  IOW, if
someone saw worker->current_work == target while holding the lock, the
worker will check the scheduled queue after finishing the target.  If
it's not doing it somewhere, it's a bug.

> insert_wq_barrier() also does:
> 
> 	unsigned long *bits = work_data_bits(target);
> 	...
> 	*bits |= WORK_STRUCT_LINKED;
> 
> perhaps this needs atomic_long_set(), although I am not sure this really
> matters.

Yeah, well, work->data access is pretty messed up.  At this point,
there's no reason for atomic_long_t to begin with.  No real
atomic_long operations are used anyway.  Maybe work->data started as
proper atomic_long_t and lost its properness as it got overloaded with
multiple things.  I'm thinking about just making it a unsigned long
and killing work_data_bits().

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/