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

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 06:01:56PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >
> > DEADLOCK EXAMPLE for explain my above option:
> >
> > (work_func0() and work_func1() are work callback, and they
> > calls flush_workqueue())
> >
> > CPU#0					CPU#1
> > run_workqueue()                         run_workqueue()
> >   work_func0()                            work_func1()
> >     flush_workqueue()                       flush_workqueue()
> >       flush_cpu_workqueue(0)                  .
> >       flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu#1)              flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu#0)
> >         waiting work_func1() in cpu#1           waiting work_func0 in cpu#0
> >
> > DEADLOCK!
> 
> I am not sure. Note that when work_func0() calls run_workqueue(),
> it will clear cwq->current_work, so another flush_ on CPU#1 will
> not wait for work_func0, no?


No but CPU#1 can wait for a completion that will never be done, because
CWQ#0 is waiting for CWQ#1.

 
> But anyway. Nobody argues, "if (cwq->thread == current) {...}" code in
> flush_cpu_workqueue() is bad and should die. Otrherwise, we should
> fix the lockdep warning ;)
> 
> The only problem: if we still have the users of this hack, they will
> deadlock. But perhaps it is time to fix them.
> 
> And, if it was not clear, I do agree with this change. And Peter
> seems to agree as well.
> 
> Oleg.
>