linux-kernel - Re: workqueue_set_max

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: <1323977161.1082.12.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Date:	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:26:01 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: workqueue_set_max_active(wq, 0)?

On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 11:12 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:

> > Hm, good point. We can't abstract out all of it -- the freezer API
> > doesn't want to wait for it to finish -- but probably a bit of it.
> > 
> > How do you iterate workqueues? We'd have to do that for the freezer
> > part, unless we want to work on CWQs again.
> 
> By Locking workqueue_lock and walking workqueues list.  Hmmm...

Ah. So fundamentally, the freeze code does:

 * set each gcwq frozen
 * set max_active=0 for each CWQ in each WQ

but it interleaves the two loops. I guess this would have to be
untangled if we want to share it so it sets all gcwq frozen and then
iterates the workqueues and their CWQs. Locking seems a bit hairy
though, why does the current code keep the GCWQ lock over CWQ changes? I
guess that's so nothing can work on the CWQ?

> > Actually I'm not really sure I understand the differences between WQ,
> > CWQ and GCWQ...
> 
[snip explanation]

thanks.

> The reason why FREEZING currently is on GCWQ is because freezing is a
> system wide operation.  If we're gonna implement pause, I think it
> should probably be in cwq.

Ok, makes sense too.

I think I'm going to do something simpler first though, the locking
scares me a bit. I'll do something for my single-threaded max-active=1
workqueue first directly in mac80211 to try out the idea ...

johannes

--
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/