[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhaoDiJ8MUOhRmp6@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:33:02 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: 0day robot <lkp@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lkp@...ts.01.org, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Use private WQ for schedule_on_each_cpu() API
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:57:27AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2022/02/23 2:29, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 07:38:09PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Since schedule_on_each_cpu() calls schedule_work_on() and flush_work(),
> >> we should avoid using system_wq in order to avoid unexpected locking
> >> dependency.
> >
> > I don't get it. schedule_on_each_cpu() is flushing each work item and thus
> > shouldn't need its own flushing domain. What's this change for?
>
> A kernel test robot tested "[PATCH v2] workqueue: Warn flush attempt using
> system-wide workqueues" on 5.16.0-06523-g29bd199e4e73 and hit a lockdep
> warning ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220221083358.GC835@xsang-OptiPlex-9020 ).
>
> Although the circular locking dependency itself needs to be handled by
> lockless console printing support, we won't be able to apply
> "[PATCH v2] workqueue: Warn flush attempt using system-wide workqueues"
> if schedule_on_each_cpu() continues using system-wide workqueues.
The patch seems pretty wrong. What's problematic is system workqueue flushes
(which flushes the entire workqueue), not work item flushes.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists