linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] workqueue: Make the workqueue code PREEMPT

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]

Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 17:20:04 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] workqueue: Make the workqueue code PREEMPT_RT safe

On 2020-05-26 14:46:59 [-0700], Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:41 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Almost all users of swait have historically been buggy and/or
> > pointless.
> 
> Yeah, looking at this one, it really seems to fundamentally fall in
> the "pointless" category.
> 
> So yeah - instead of extending swait with a new primitive that nobody
> else wants than this pointless case, just don't use swait at all.
> 
> We have better models. We have "rcuwait", and we have
> "wake_up_process()". Either of which is simpler and more efficient
> than swait, and are actually useful. rcuwait isn't exactly widely
> used, but it has very nice semantics for when that is what you want.
> And wake_up_process() is both simple and straightforward, particularly
> when you already have a spinlock for protecting whatever state it is
> you're waking up on or waiting for.

rcuwait would be this:

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 891ccad5f2716..3259f52bfe765 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static struct workqueue_attrs *wq_update_unbound_numa_attrs_buf;
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(wq_pool_mutex);	/* protects pools and workqueues list */
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(wq_pool_attach_mutex); /* protects worker attach/detach */
 static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(wq_mayday_lock);	/* protects wq->maydays list */
-static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(wq_manager_wait); /* wait for manager to go away */
+static struct rcuwait manager_wait;	/* wait for manager to go away */
 
 static LIST_HEAD(workqueues);		/* PR: list of all workqueues */
 static bool workqueue_freezing;		/* PL: have wqs started freezing? */
@@ -2140,7 +2140,7 @@ static bool manage_workers(struct worker *worker)
 
 	pool->manager = NULL;
 	pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE;
-	wake_up(&wq_manager_wait);
+	rcuwait_wake_up(&manager_wait);
 	return true;
 }
 
@@ -3504,6 +3504,17 @@ static void rcu_free_pool(struct rcu_head *rcu)
 	kfree(pool);
 }
 
+static bool wq_manager_inactive(struct worker_pool *pool)
+{
+	spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
+
+	if (pool->flags & POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE) {
+		spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
+		return false;
+	}
+	return true;
+}
+
 /**
  * put_unbound_pool - put a worker_pool
  * @pool: worker_pool to put
@@ -3540,9 +3551,8 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
 	 * @pool's workers from blocking on attach_mutex.  We're the last
 	 * manager and @pool gets freed with the flag set.
 	 */
-	spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
-	wait_event_lock_irq(wq_manager_wait,
-			    !(pool->flags & POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE), pool->lock);
+	rcuwait_wait_event(&manager_wait, wq_manager_inactive(pool),
+			   TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
 	pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE;
 
 	while ((worker = first_idle_worker(pool)))

There is the unbalanced lock/unlock in wq_manager_inactive() which
sparse complains about. Other than that it looks straight forward.

>                  Linus

Sebastian