Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: not allow recursion run_workqueue

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Thu Jan 22 2009 - 13:25:53 EST

On 01/22, Frédéric Weisbecker wrote:
> 2009/1/22 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On 01/22, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>
> >> BUG_ON seems perhaps a bit too much for such case. The system
> >> will run in an endless loop because of a mistake that will not have
> >> necessarily a fatal end.
> >
> > Confused. Why do you think the system will run in an endless loop?
> > cwq-thread will exit.
> Because a BUG_ON panics and then spin for ever. Yeah I shoud have said "panic",
> sorry... It was just to tell that a BUG_ON is the end...

BUG_ON() only panics when panic_on_oops == T, no?

But let me repeat, this is minor issue. I agree with WARN().

> >> WARN_ON should be enough (plus the warn that lockdep will raise
> >> too in this case).
> >
> > and if cwq-thread proceeds after WARN_ON() it will be "lost" anyway
> > because it will sleep forever.
> You want to say spin forever?
> Why would it? cwq->lock is unlocked at this time.

No, it will sleep forever, unless I missed something.

Even if ->worklist is empty, ->current_work != NULL, we are ->current_work.
We insert the barrier work and call wait_for_completion(). But nobody
can do complete() except us.

> If we keep the usual path:
> if (cwq->thread == current) {
> run_workqueue(cwq);
> active = 1;
> }
> it shouldn't hurt.

If we keep this path then we have the different patch ;) In that
case of course BUG_ON() is overkill.

But again, as Peter says, we already have the warning from lockdep.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at