Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 01/26, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:45:16 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > that would change the concept of execution but indeed it would be 
> > interesting to try. It's outside the scope of late -rcs i guess, but 
> > worthwile nevertheless.
> >
>
> Well it turns out that I was having a less-than-usually-senile moment:
>
> : commit b89deed32ccc96098bd6bc953c64bba6b847774f
> : Author:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> : AuthorDate: Wed May 9 02:33:52 2007 -0700
> : Commit:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> : CommitDate: Wed May 9 12:30:50 2007 -0700
> : 
> :     implement flush_work()
> :     
> :     A basic problem with flush_scheduled_work() is that it blocks behind _all_
> :     presently-queued works, rather than just the work whcih the caller wants to
> :     flush.  If the caller holds some lock, and if one of the queued work happens
> :     to want that lock as well then accidental deadlocks can occur.
> :     
> :     One example of this is the phy layer: it wants to flush work while holding
> :     rtnl_lock().  But if a linkwatch event happens to be queued, the phy code will
> :     deadlock because the linkwatch callback function takes rtnl_lock.
> :     
> :     So we implement a new function which will flush a *single* work - just the one
> :     which the caller wants to free up.  Thus we avoid the accidental deadlocks
> :     which can arise from unrelated subsystems' callbacks taking shared locks.
> :     
> :     flush_work() non-blockingly dequeues the work_struct which we want to kill,
> :     then it waits for its handler to complete on all CPUs.
> :     
> :     Add ->current_work to the "struct cpu_workqueue_struct", it points to
> :     currently running "struct work_struct". When flush_work(work) detects
> :     ->current_work == work, it inserts a barrier at the _head_ of ->worklist
> :     (and thus right _after_ that work) and waits for completition. This means
> :     that the next work fired on that CPU will be this barrier, or another
> :     barrier queued by concurrent flush_work(), so the caller of flush_work()
> :     will be woken before any "regular" work has a chance to run.
> :     
> :     When wait_on_work() unlocks workqueue_mutex (or whatever we choose to protect
> :     against CPU hotplug), CPU may go away. But in that case take_over_work() will
> :     move a barrier we queued to another CPU, it will be fired sometime, and
> :     wait_on_work() will be woken.
> :     
> :     Actually, we are doing cleanup_workqueue_thread()->kthread_stop() before
> :     take_over_work(), so cwq->thread should complete its ->worklist (and thus
> :     the barrier), because currently we don't check kthread_should_stop() in
> :     run_workqueue(). But even if we did, everything should be ok.
> 
> 
> Why isn't that working in this case??

Cough. Because that "flush_work()" was renamed to cancel_work_sync(). Because
it really cancells the work_struct if it can.

Now we have flush_work() which does not cancel, but waits for completion of
the single work_struct. Of course, it can hang if the caller holds the lock
which can be taken by another work in that workqueue.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/