Re: workqueue code needing preemption disabled

[Tejun Heo]

Hey, Steven.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:23:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Maybe I'm confused but I can't really see how the above would be a
> > problem to workqueue in itself.  Both rq->lock and gcwq->lock are
> > irq-safe, so spin_lock() not disabling preemption shouldn't be a
> > problem.  Are CPU hotplug operations involved?
> 
> No CPU hotplug is involved here. But I will note that gcwq->lock in -rt
> is not irq -safe. That is, in rt the spin_lock_irq(&gcwq->lock) really
> becomes a special "mutex_lock(&gcwq->lock)". Because, in -rt, interrupts
> (except for the timer interrupt) are run as threads, and anything that
> isn't marked as raw_spin_lock() turns into a mutex. I don't believe it's
> safe to turn the gcwq->lock into a raw_spin_lock either, or at least not
> short enough to hold it. Anything that holds a spin_lock() for more than
> a microsecond is too much for a raw lock.

Does that mean that a task holding gcwq->lock may be preempted?  If
so, that sure could lead to weird problems.  Maybe gcwq->lock should
be marked non-preemptible somehow?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/