linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 3/3] workqueue: fix possible idle worker depletion during CPU

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: <CACvQF51CEjqx_5pftzf6BwxCtyV8zGsVNBKjKBtt-L_iSxr4iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 9 Sep 2012 01:18:25 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 3/3] workqueue: fix possible idle worker
 depletion during CPU_ONLINE

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> I think this should do it.  Can you spot any hole with the following
> patch?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Index: work/kernel/workqueue.c
> ===================================================================
> --- work.orig/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ work/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ enum {
>
>         /* pool flags */
>         POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS     = 1 << 0,       /* need to manage workers */
> +       POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS   = 1 << 1,       /* managing workers */
>
>         /* worker flags */
>         WORKER_STARTED          = 1 << 0,       /* started */
> @@ -165,7 +166,7 @@ struct worker_pool {
>         struct timer_list       idle_timer;     /* L: worker idle timeout */
>         struct timer_list       mayday_timer;   /* L: SOS timer for workers */
>
> -       struct mutex            manager_mutex;  /* mutex manager should hold */
> +       struct mutex            manager_mutex;  /* manager <-> CPU hotplug */
>         struct ida              worker_ida;     /* L: for worker IDs */
>  };
>
> @@ -480,6 +481,7 @@ static atomic_t unbound_pool_nr_running[
>  };
>
>  static int worker_thread(void *__worker);
> +static void process_scheduled_works(struct worker *worker);
>
>  static int worker_pool_pri(struct worker_pool *pool)
>  {
> @@ -652,7 +654,7 @@ static bool need_to_manage_workers(struc
>  /* Do we have too many workers and should some go away? */
>  static bool too_many_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
>  {
> -       bool managing = mutex_is_locked(&pool->manager_mutex);
> +       bool managing = pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
>         int nr_idle = pool->nr_idle + managing; /* manager is considered idle */
>         int nr_busy = pool->nr_workers - nr_idle;
>
> @@ -1820,14 +1822,43 @@ static bool maybe_destroy_workers(struct
>   * some action was taken.
>   */
>  static bool manage_workers(struct worker *worker)
> +       __releases(&gcwq->lock) __acquires(&gcwq->lock)
>  {
>         struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
> +       struct global_cwq *gcwq = pool->gcwq;
>         bool ret = false;
>
> -       if (!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex))
> -               return ret;
> +       if (pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS)
> +               return ret;
>
>         pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS;
> +       pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * To simplify both worker management and CPU hotplug, hold off
> +        * management while hotplug is in progress.  CPU hotplug path can't
> +        * grab %POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS to achieve this because that can
> +        * lead to idle worker depletion (all become busy thinking someone
> +        * else is managing) which in turn can result in deadlock under
> +        * extreme circumstances.
> +        *
> +        * manager_mutex would always be free unless CPU hotplug is in
> +        * progress.  trylock first without dropping gcwq->lock.
> +        */
> +       if (unlikely(!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex))) {
> +               spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);

hotplug can happen here.

> +               mutex_lock(&pool->manager_mutex);
> +               spin_lock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
> +
> +               /*
> +                * CPU hotplug could have scheduled rebind_work while we're
> +                * waiting for manager_mutex.  Rebind before doing anything
> +                * else.  This has to be handled here.  worker_thread()
> +                * will be confused by the unexpected work item.
> +                */
> +               process_scheduled_works(worker);

hotplug code can't iterate manager.  not rebind_work() nor UNBOUND for manager.

> +               ret = true;
> +       }
>
>         /*
>          * Destroy and then create so that may_start_working() is true
> @@ -1836,7 +1867,9 @@ static bool manage_workers(struct worker
>         ret |= maybe_destroy_workers(pool);
>         ret |= maybe_create_worker(pool);
>
> +       pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS;
>         mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_mutex);
> +
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> @@ -3393,7 +3426,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_busy);
>   * cpu comes back online.
>   */
>
> -/* claim manager positions of all pools */
> +/* claim manager positions of all pools, see manage_workers() for details */
>  static void gcwq_claim_management_and_lock(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
>  {
>         struct worker_pool *pool;
> --
> 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/
--
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/