* [RFC PATCH 2/8] workqueue: Make create_worker() safe against prematurely wakeups
[not found] ` <20220804084135.92425-3-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
@ 2022-08-04 12:35 ` Hillf Danton
2022-08-05 2:30 ` Lai Jiangshan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hillf Danton @ 2022-08-04 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lai Jiangshan; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mm, Petr Mladek, Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 16:41:29 +0800 Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> @@ -1942,6 +1943,7 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> goto fail;
>
> worker->id = id;
> + worker->pool = pool;
>
> if (pool->cpu >= 0)
> snprintf(id_buf, sizeof(id_buf), "%d:%d%s", pool->cpu, id,
> @@ -1949,6 +1951,7 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> else
> snprintf(id_buf, sizeof(id_buf), "u%d:%d", pool->id, id);
>
> + reinit_completion(&pool->created);
> worker->task = kthread_create_on_node(worker_thread, worker, pool->node,
> "kworker/%s", id_buf);
> if (IS_ERR(worker->task))
> @@ -1957,15 +1960,9 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> set_user_nice(worker->task, pool->attrs->nice);
> kthread_bind_mask(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
>
> - /* successful, attach the worker to the pool */
> - worker_attach_to_pool(worker, pool);
> -
> /* start the newly created worker */
> - raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
> - worker->pool->nr_workers++;
> - worker_enter_idle(worker);
> wake_up_process(worker->task);
> - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
> + wait_for_completion(&pool->created);
>
> return worker;
cpu0 cpu1 cpu2
=== === ===
complete
reinit_completion
wait_for_completion
Any chance for race above?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] workqueue: Make create_worker() safe against prematurely wakeups
2022-08-04 12:35 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] workqueue: Make create_worker() safe against prematurely wakeups Hillf Danton
@ 2022-08-05 2:30 ` Lai Jiangshan
2022-08-06 8:02 ` Hillf Danton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Lai Jiangshan @ 2022-08-05 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hillf Danton; +Cc: LKML, linux-mm, Petr Mladek, Peter Zijlstra
i
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 8:35 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 16:41:29 +0800 Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1942,6 +1943,7 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> > goto fail;
> >
> > worker->id = id;
> > + worker->pool = pool;
> >
> > if (pool->cpu >= 0)
> > snprintf(id_buf, sizeof(id_buf), "%d:%d%s", pool->cpu, id,
> > @@ -1949,6 +1951,7 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> > else
> > snprintf(id_buf, sizeof(id_buf), "u%d:%d", pool->id, id);
> >
> > + reinit_completion(&pool->created);
> > worker->task = kthread_create_on_node(worker_thread, worker, pool->node,
> > "kworker/%s", id_buf);
> > if (IS_ERR(worker->task))
> > @@ -1957,15 +1960,9 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> > set_user_nice(worker->task, pool->attrs->nice);
> > kthread_bind_mask(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
> >
> > - /* successful, attach the worker to the pool */
> > - worker_attach_to_pool(worker, pool);
> > -
> > /* start the newly created worker */
> > - raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
> > - worker->pool->nr_workers++;
> > - worker_enter_idle(worker);
> > wake_up_process(worker->task);
> > - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
> > + wait_for_completion(&pool->created);
> >
> > return worker;
>
> cpu0 cpu1 cpu2
> === === ===
> complete
>
> reinit_completion
> wait_for_completion
reinit_completion() and wait_for_completion() are both in
create_worker(). create_worker() itself is mutually exclusive
which means no two create_worker()s running at the same time
for the same pool.
No work item can be added before the first initial create_worker()
returns for a new or first-online per-cpu pool, so there would be no
manager for the pool during the first initial create_worker().
The manager is the only worker who can call create_worker() for a pool
except the first initial create_worker().
And there is always only one manager after the first initial
create_worker().
The document style in some of workqueue code is:
"/* locking rule: what it is */"
For example:
struct list_head worklist; /* L: list of pending works */
which means it is protected by pool->lock.
And for
struct completion created; /* create_worker(): worker created */
it means it is protected by the exclusive create_worker().
>
> Any chance for race above?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] workqueue: Make create_worker() safe against prematurely wakeups
2022-08-05 2:30 ` Lai Jiangshan
@ 2022-08-06 8:02 ` Hillf Danton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hillf Danton @ 2022-08-06 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lai Jiangshan; +Cc: LKML, linux-mm, Petr Mladek, Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:30:10 +0800 Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 8:35 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -1942,6 +1943,7 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> > > goto fail;
> > >
> > > worker->id = id;
> > > + worker->pool = pool;
> > >
> > > if (pool->cpu >= 0)
> > > snprintf(id_buf, sizeof(id_buf), "%d:%d%s", pool->cpu, id,
> > > @@ -1949,6 +1951,7 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> > > else
> > > snprintf(id_buf, sizeof(id_buf), "u%d:%d", pool->id, id);
> > >
> > > + reinit_completion(&pool->created);
> > > worker->task = kthread_create_on_node(worker_thread, worker, pool->node,
> > > "kworker/%s", id_buf);
> > > if (IS_ERR(worker->task))
> > > @@ -1957,15 +1960,9 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
> > > set_user_nice(worker->task, pool->attrs->nice);
> > > kthread_bind_mask(worker->task, pool->attrs->cpumask);
> > >
> > > - /* successful, attach the worker to the pool */
> > > - worker_attach_to_pool(worker, pool);
> > > -
> > > /* start the newly created worker */
> > > - raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
> > > - worker->pool->nr_workers++;
> > > - worker_enter_idle(worker);
> > > wake_up_process(worker->task);
> > > - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
> > > + wait_for_completion(&pool->created);
> > >
> > > return worker;
> >
> > cpu0 cpu1 cpu2
> > === === ===
> > complete
> >
> > reinit_completion
> > wait_for_completion
>
> reinit_completion() and wait_for_completion() are both in
> create_worker(). create_worker() itself is mutually exclusive
> which means no two create_worker()s running at the same time
> for the same pool.
Then want to know the reasons why complete() in combination with
wait_for_completion() OTOH fails to work for you without reinit.
>
> No work item can be added before the first initial create_worker()
> returns for a new or first-online per-cpu pool, so there would be no
> manager for the pool during the first initial create_worker().
>
> The manager is the only worker who can call create_worker() for a pool
> except the first initial create_worker().
>
> And there is always only one manager after the first initial
> create_worker().
>
> The document style in some of workqueue code is:
> "/* locking rule: what it is */"
>
> For example:
> struct list_head worklist; /* L: list of pending works */
> which means it is protected by pool->lock.
>
> And for
> struct completion created; /* create_worker(): worker created */
> it means it is protected by the exclusive create_worker().
>
> >
> > Any chance for race above?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-08-06 8:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20220804084135.92425-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20220804084135.92425-3-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
2022-08-04 12:35 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] workqueue: Make create_worker() safe against prematurely wakeups Hillf Danton
2022-08-05 2:30 ` Lai Jiangshan
2022-08-06 8:02 ` Hillf Danton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox