| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1294047091.2016.38.camel@laptop> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:31:31 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: relax lockdep annotation on flush_work() On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 13:57 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote: > Currently, the lockdep annotation in flush_work() requires exclusive > access on the workqueue the target work is queued on and triggers > warning if a work is trying to flush another work on the same > workqueue; however, this is no longer true as workqueues can now > execute multiple works concurrently. > > This patch adds lock_map_acquire_read() and make process_one_work() > hold read access to the workqueue while executing a work and > start_flush_work() check for write access if concurrnecy level is one > and read access if higher. > > This better represents what's going on and removes spurious lockdep > warnings which are triggered by fake dependency chain created through > flush_work(). Is this still true in the low memory situation where we're running the emergency thread? I can imagine the emergency thread trying to flush itself isn't really a good thing. -- 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