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]
Date:	Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:12:32 +0000
From:	"Myklebust, Trond" <>
To:	Tejun Heo <>
CC:	"J. Bruce Fields" <>,
	"Adamson, Dros" <>,
	Dave Jones <>,
	Linux Kernel <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: nfsd oops on Linus' current tree.

On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 17:08 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 03:11:20PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Both rpciod and nfsiod already set WQ_MEM_RECLAIM.
> > 
> > But, right, looking at kernel/workqueue.c, it seems that the dedicated
> > "rescuer" threads are invoked only in the case when work is stalled
> > because a new worker thread isn't allocated quickly enough.
> Because that's the *only* case where progress can't be guaranteed
> otherwise.
> > So, what to do that's simplest enough that it would work for
> > post-rc2/stable?  I was happy having just a simple dedicated
> > thread--these are only started when nfsd is, so there's no real thread
> > proliferation problem.
> The analysis is likely completely wrong, so please don't go off doing
> something unnecessary.  Please take look at what's causing the
> deadlocks again.

The analysis is a no-brainer:
We see a deadlock due to one work item waiting for completion of another
work item that is queued on the same CPU. There is no other dependency
between the two work items.

Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists