[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120423180757.GD5406@google.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:07:57 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] workqueue: Catch more locking problems with
flush_work()
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:28:50PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> If a workqueue is flushed with flush_work() lockdep checking can
> be circumvented. For example:
>
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(mutex);
>
> static void my_work(struct work_struct *w)
> {
> mutex_lock(&mutex);
> mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> }
>
> static DECLARE_WORK(work, my_work);
>
> static int __init start_test_module(void)
> {
> schedule_work(&work);
> return 0;
> }
> module_init(start_test_module);
>
> static void __exit stop_test_module(void)
> {
> mutex_lock(&mutex);
> flush_work(&work);
> mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> }
> module_exit(stop_test_module);
>
> would not always print a warning when flush_work() was called.
> In this trivial example nothing could go wrong since we are
> guaranteed module_init() and module_exit() don't run concurrently,
> but if the work item is schedule asynchronously we could have a
> scenario where the work item is running just at the time flush_work()
> is called resulting in a classic ABBA locking problem.
>
> Add a lockdep hint by acquiring and releasing the work item
> lockdep_map in flush_work() so that we always catch this
> potential deadlock scenario.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Applied to wq/for-3.5. Let's see whether it triggers spuriously.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists