linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ

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]

Date:	Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:59:18 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
	dwalker@...eaurora.org, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de,
	florian@...kler.org, andi@...stfloor.org, mst@...hat.com,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND

Hello,

On 07/21/2010 03:08 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
>> As all unbound works are served by the same gcwq, non reentrancy is
>> automatically guaranteed.
> 
> That doesn't actually explain _how_ it's non-reentrant.  The gcwq includes a
> collection of threads that can execute from it, right?  If so, what mechanism
> prevents two threads from executing the same work item, if that work item
> isn't bound to a CPU?  I've been trying to figure this out from the code, but
> I don't see it offhand.

Sharing the same gcwq is why workqueues bound to one CPU have
non-reentrancy, so they're using the same mechanism.  If it doesn't
work for unbound workqueues, the normal ones are broken too.  Each
gcwq keeps track of currently running works in a hash table and looks
whether the work in question is already executing before starting
executing it.  It's a bit complex but as a work_struct may be freed
once execution starts, the status needs to be tracked outside.

>>> Btw, how does this fare in an RT system, where work items bound to a CPU
>>> can't get executed because their CPU is busy with an RT thread, even
>>> though there are other, idle CPUs?
>>
>> Sure, there's nothing special about unbound workers.  They're just normal
>> kthreads.
> 
> I should've been clearer: As I understand it, normal (unbound) worker items
> are bound to the CPU on which they were queued, and will be executed there
> only (barring CPU removal).  If that's the case, isn't it possible that work
> items can be prevented from getting execution time by an RT thread that's
> hogging a CPU and won't let go?

Yeah, for bound workqueues, sure.  That's exactly the same as the
original workqueue implementation.  For unbound workqueues, it doesn't
matter.

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/