[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4168398.ejJDZkT8p0@leap>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:27:08 +0100
From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
syzbot <syzbot+831661966588c802aae9@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
jgg@...pe.ca, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in worker_thread
On lunedì 14 febbraio 2022 04:44:25 CET Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:08:00AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > + destroy_workqueue(srp_tl_err_wq);
> >
> > Then, we can call WARN_ON() if e.g. flush_workqueue() is called on system-wide workqueues.
>
> Yeah, this is the right thing to do. It makes no sense at all to call
> flush_workqueue() on the shared workqueues as the caller has no idea what
> it's gonna end up waiting for. It was on my todo list a long while ago but
> slipped through the crack. If anyone wanna take a stab at it (including
> scrubbing the existing users, of course), please be my guest.
>
Just to think and understand... what if the system-wide WQ were allocated as unbound
ordered (i.e., as in alloc_ordered_workqueue()) with "max_active" of one?
1) Would it solve the locks dependency problem?
2) Would it introduce performance penalties (bottlenecks)?
Greetings,
Fabio
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists