Re: [PATCH] workqueue: fix possible bug which may silence the pool

[Lai Jiangshan]

On 03/05/2013 03:20 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
> 
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 11:55:29PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> After we introduce multiple pools for cpu pools, a part of the comments
>> in wq_unbind_fn() becomes wrong.
>>
>> It said that "current worker would trigger unbound chain execution".
>> It is wrong. current worker only belongs to one of the multiple pools.
>>
>> If wq_unbind_fn() does unbind the normal_pri pool(not the pool of the current
>> worker), the current worker is not the available worker to trigger unbound
>> chain execution of the normal_pri pool, and if all the workers of
>> the normal_pri goto sleep after they were set %WORKER_UNBOUND but before
>> they finish their current work, unbound chain execution is not triggered
>> totally. The pool is stopped!
>>
>> We can change wq_unbind_fn() only does unbind one pool and we launch multiple
>> wq_unbind_fn()s, one for each pool to solve the problem.
>> But this change will add much latency to hotplug path unnecessarily.
>>
>> So we choice to wake up a worker directly to trigger unbound chain execution.
>>
>> current worker may sleep on &second_pool->assoc_mutex, so we also move
>> the wakeup code into the loop to avoid second_pool silences the first_pool.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Nice catch.
> 
>> @@ -3446,28 +3446,35 @@ static void wq_unbind_fn(struct work_struct *work)
>>  
>>  		spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>>  		mutex_unlock(&pool->assoc_mutex);
>> -	}
>>  
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Call schedule() so that we cross rq->lock and thus can guarantee
>> -	 * sched callbacks see the %WORKER_UNBOUND flag.  This is necessary
>> -	 * as scheduler callbacks may be invoked from other cpus.
>> -	 */
>> -	schedule();
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Call schedule() so that we cross rq->lock and thus can
>> +		 * guarantee sched callbacks see the %WORKER_UNBOUND flag.
>> +		 * This is necessary as scheduler callbacks may be invoked
>> +		 * from other cpus.
>> +		 */
>> +		schedule();
>>  
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Sched callbacks are disabled now.  Zap nr_running.  After this,
>> -	 * nr_running stays zero and need_more_worker() and keep_working()
>> -	 * are always true as long as the worklist is not empty.  Pools on
>> -	 * @cpu now behave as unbound (in terms of concurrency management)
>> -	 * pools which are served by workers tied to the CPU.
>> -	 *
>> -	 * On return from this function, the current worker would trigger
>> -	 * unbound chain execution of pending work items if other workers
>> -	 * didn't already.
>> -	 */
>> -	for_each_std_worker_pool(pool, cpu)
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Sched callbacks are disabled now.  Zap nr_running.
>> +		 * After this, nr_running stays zero and need_more_worker()
>> +		 * and keep_working() are always true as long as the worklist
>> +		 * is not empty.  This pool now behave as unbound (in terms of
>> +		 * concurrency management) pool which are served by workers
>> +		 * tied to the pool.
>> +		 */
>>  		atomic_set(&pool->nr_running, 0);
>> +
>> +		/* The current busy workers of this pool may goto sleep without
>> +		 * wake up any other worker after they were set %WORKER_UNBOUND
>> +		 * flag. Here we wake up another possible worker to start
>> +		 * the unbound chain execution of pending work items in this
>> +		 * case.
>> +		 */
>> +		spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
>> +		wake_up_worker(pool);
>> +		spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>> +	}
> 
> But can we please just addd wake_up_worker() in the
> for_each_std_worker_pool() loop?  

wake_up_worker() needed be put on the same loop which do set %WORKER_UNBOUND.


mutex_lock(&pool->assoc_mutex);
do set %WORKER_UNBOUND for normal_pri pool
mutex_unlock(&pool->assoc_mutex);

// no wakeup for normal_pri pool
// but all workers of normal_pri pool goto sleep

// try to  do set %WORKER_UNBOUND for high_pri pool
mutex_lock(&pool->assoc_mutex);
	waiting forever here due to high_pri pool's manage_workers()
	waiting on allocating memory forever(waiting normal_pri pool
	free memory, but normal_pri pool is silenced)
mutex_unlock(&pool->assoc_mutex);


> We want to mark the patch for
> -stable and keep it short and to the point.  This patch is a couple
> times larger than necessary.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

--
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/