| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 00:28:22 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: [PATCH 04/10 V4] workqueue: add manage_workers_slowpath()
If hotplug code grabbed the manager_mutex and worker_thread try to create
a worker, the manage_worker() will return false and worker_thread go to
process work items. Now, on the CPU, all workers are processing work items,
no idle_worker left/ready for managing. It breaks the concept of workqueue
and it is bug.
So when manage_worker() failed to grab the manager_mutex, it should
try to enter normal process contex and then compete on the manager_mutex
instead of return false.
To safely do this, we add manage_workers_slowpath() and the worker
go to process work items mode to do the managing jobs. thus
managing jobs are processed via work item and can free to compete
on manager_mutex.
After this patch, manager_mutex can be grabbed anywhere if needed,
it will not cause the CPU consumes all the idle worker_threads.
By the way, POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS is still need to tell us
why manage_workers() failed to grab the manage_mutex.
This slowpath is hard to trigger, so I change
"if (unlikely(!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex)))"
to "if (1 || unlikely(!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex)))"
when testing, it uses manage_workers_slowpath() always.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 979ef4f..d40e8d7 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -1808,6 +1808,81 @@ static bool maybe_destroy_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
return ret;
}
+/* manage workers via work item */
+static void manage_workers_slowpath_fn(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+ struct worker *worker = kthread_data(current);
+ struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
+
+ mutex_lock(&pool->manager_mutex);
+ spin_lock_irq(&pool->gcwq->lock);
+
+ pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS;
+ maybe_destroy_workers(pool);
+ maybe_create_worker(pool);
+
+ spin_unlock_irq(&pool->gcwq->lock);
+ mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_mutex);
+}
+
+static void process_scheduled_works(struct worker *worker);
+
+/*
+ * manage_workers_slowpath - manage worker pool via work item
+ * @worker: self
+ *
+ * manage workers when rebind_workers() or gcwq_unbind_fn() beat us down
+ * on manage_mutex. The worker can't release the gcwq->lock and then
+ * compete on manage_mutex, because any worker must have at least one of:
+ * 1) with gcwq->lock held
+ * 2) with pool->manage_mutex held (manage_workers() fast path)
+ * 3) queued on idle_list
+ * 4) processing work item and queued on busy hash table
+ *
+ * So we move the managing worker job to a work item and process it,
+ * thus the manage_workers_slowpath_fn() has full ability to compete
+ * on manage_mutex.
+ *
+ * CONTEXT:
+ * with WORKER_PREP bit set
+ * spin_lock_irq(gcwq->lock) which will be released and regrabbed
+ * multiple times. Does GFP_KERNEL allocations.
+ */
+static void manage_workers_slowpath(struct worker *worker)
+{
+ struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
+ struct work_struct manage_work;
+ int cpu = pool->gcwq->cpu;
+ struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
+
+ pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
+
+ INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&manage_work, manage_workers_slowpath_fn);
+ __set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&manage_work));
+
+ /* see the comment of the same statement of worker_thread() */
+ BUG_ON(!list_empty(&worker->scheduled));
+
+ /* wq doesn't matter, use the default one */
+ if (cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND)
+ cwq = get_cwq(cpu, system_unbound_wq);
+ else
+ cwq = get_cwq(cpu, system_wq);
+
+ /* insert the work to the worker's own scheduled list */
+ debug_work_activate(&manage_work);
+ insert_work(cwq, &manage_work, &worker->scheduled,
+ work_color_to_flags(WORK_NO_COLOR));
+
+ /*
+ * Do manage workers. And may also proccess busy_worker_rebind_fn()
+ * queued by rebind_workers().
+ */
+ process_scheduled_works(worker);
+
+ pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
+}
+
/**
* manage_workers - manage worker pool
* @worker: self
@@ -1833,8 +1908,18 @@ static bool manage_workers(struct worker *worker)
struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
bool ret = false;
- if (!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex))
- return ret;
+ if (pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS)
+ return false;
+
+ if (unlikely(!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex))) {
+ /*
+ * Ouch! rebind_workers() or gcwq_unbind_fn() beats we,
+ * but we can't return without making any progress.
+ * Fall back to manage_workers_slowpath().
+ */
+ manage_workers_slowpath(worker);
+ return true;
+ }
pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS;
pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
--
1.7.4.4
--
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