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  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 Apr 2014 16:48:28 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <>
To:	Tejun Heo <>
Cc:	LKML <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Kevin Hilman <>,
	Mike Galbraith <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Viresh Kumar <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] workqueues: Account unbound workqueue in a seperate

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 08:57:51AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > The workqueues are all listed in a global list protected by a big mutex.
> > And this big mutex is used in apply_workqueue_attrs() as well.
> > 
> > Now as we plan to implement a directory to control the cpumask of
> > all non-ABI unbound workqueues, we want to be able to iterate over all
> > unbound workqueues and call apply_workqueue_attrs() for each of
> > them with the new cpumask.
> > 
> > But the risk for a deadlock is on the way: we need to iterate the list
> > of workqueues under wq_pool_mutex. But then apply_workqueue_attrs()
> > itself calls wq_pool_mutex.
> Wouldn't the right thing to do would be factoring out
> apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()?  It's cleaner to block out addition of
> new workqueues while the masks are being updated anyway.

I'm not quite sure I get what you suggest. Do you mean have apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()
calling apply_workqueue_attrs() under the lock on this patch?

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