Message-Id: <20120308143909.bfc4cb4d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:39:09 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Elly Jones <ellyjones@...omium.org>,
	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olofj@...omium.org>,
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: workqueues and percpu (was: [PATCH] dm: remake of the verity
 target)

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:21:53 -0500 
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> 
> > You are
> > allocated a complete shash_desc per I/O. We only allocate one per CPU.
> 
> I looked at it --- and using percpu variables in workqueues isn't safe 
> because the workqueue can change CPU if the CPU is hot-unplugged.
> 
> dm-crypt has the same bug --- it also uses workqueue with per-cpu 
> variables and assumes that the CPU doesn't change for a single work item.
> 
> This program shows that work executed in a workqueue can be switched to a 
> different CPU.
> 
> I'm wondering how much other kernel code assumes that workqueues are bound 
> to a specific CPU, which isn't true if we unplug that CPU.

ugh.

We really don't want to have to avoid using workqueues because of some
daft issue with CPU hot-unplug.  And yes, there are assumptions in various
work handlers that they will be pinned to a single CPU.  Finding and fixing
those assumptions would be painful.

Heck, even debug_smp_processor_id() can be wrong in the presence of the
cpu-unplug thing.

I'm not sure what we can do about it really, apart from blocking unplug
until all the target CPU's workqueues have been cleared.  And/or refusing
to unplug a CPU until all pinned-to-that-cpu kernel threads have been
shut down or pinned elsewhere (which is the same thing, only more
general).

Tejun, is this new behaviour?  I do recall that a long time ago we
wrestled with unplug-vs-worker-threads and I ended up OK with the
result, but I forget what it was.  IIRC Rusty was involved.


That being said, I don't think it's worth compromising the DM code
because of this workqueue wart: lots of other code has the same wart,
and we should find a centralised fix for it.

> /*
>  * A proof of concept that a work item executed on a workqueue may change CPU
>  * when CPU hot-unplugging is used.
>  * Compile this as a module and run:
>  * insmod test.ko; sleep 1; echo 0 >/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
>  * You see that the work item starts executing on CPU 1 and ends up executing
>  * on different CPU, usually 0.
>  */
> 
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/delay.h>
> 
> static struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> static struct work_struct work;
> 
> static void do_work(struct work_struct *w)
> {
> 	printk("starting work on cpu %d\n", smp_processor_id());
> 	msleep(10000);
> 	printk("finishing work on cpu %d\n", smp_processor_id());
> }
> 
> static int __init test_init(void)
> {
> 	printk("module init\n");
> 	wq = alloc_workqueue("testd", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE, 1);
> 	if (!wq) {
> 		printk("alloc_workqueue failed\n");
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 	}
> 	INIT_WORK(&work, do_work);
> 	queue_work_on(1, wq, &work);
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> static void __exit test_exit(void)
> {
> 	destroy_workqueue(wq);
> 	printk("module exit\n");
> }
> 
> module_init(test_init)
> module_exit(test_exit)
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
--
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