public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: travis@sgi.com, mingo@redhat.com, davej@redhat.com,
	cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:05:50 +1030	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200902022305.51344.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090130141744.007fe725.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Saturday 31 January 2009 08:47:44 Andrew Morton wrote:
> Just as an example, take a look at allocate_threshold_blocks().  That
> function way down in the innards of x86 has blotted out large amounts of
> kernel code, so that code can now not use work_on_cpu().  Anything which
> happens inside ext3 commit (the entire block layer and all drivers
> underneath it).  Large lumps of networking code.  Parts of the page
> allocator and the VFS which I haven't started to think about yet.

Yes, you're right.  Any infrastructure which does callouts holding a lock
has the same problem.  We have several of those, as I pointed out, but the
problem comes when invoking any two; more likely when they're general.

And I did so much under work_on_cpu here (Mike is credited, but it looks like
my work) precisely because I have no idea what this code is doing, so chose
the simplest conversion.

AFAICT, it just wants to rdmsr on a particular CPU.  rdmsr_on_cpu() is pretty
easy to implement which would fix *this* case (and IIRC, would be useful
elsewhere)

If we want a general work_on_cpu(), we need this:

Subject: work_on_cpu: __work_on_cpu and singlethread work_on_cpu

Andrew Morton points out two problems with the current work_on_cpu
implementation.  Firstly, it adds a thread per cpu, which is wasteful.
Secondly, by holding a lock across a generic callback, it creates more
potential for lock inversion: any lock grabbed by the callback is a
lock which another unrelated caller to work_on_cpu() can't hold.

(A similar issue has plagued kevent).

This patch does two things: firstly, it changes to a singlethread
workqueue which simply moves itself to the appropriate CPU.  Secondly,
it adds an __work_on_cpu() for callbacks which need to grab locks:
this allows them to use their own independent workqueue.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
---
 include/linux/workqueue.h |    7 +++++
 kernel/workqueue.c        |   59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/workqueue.h b/include/linux/workqueue.h
--- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
+++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
@@ -257,7 +257,14 @@ static inline long work_on_cpu(unsigned 
 {
 	return fn(arg);
 }
+static inline long __work_on_cpu(struct workqueue_struct *swq,
+				 unsigned cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
+{
+	return fn(arg);
+}
 #else
+long __work_on_cpu(struct workqueue_struct *swq,
+		   unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg);
 long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg);
 #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
 #endif
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -977,6 +977,7 @@ struct work_for_cpu {
 	struct work_struct work;
 	long (*fn)(void *);
 	void *arg;
+	unsigned int cpu;
 	long ret;
 };
 
@@ -984,8 +985,48 @@ static void do_work_for_cpu(struct work_
 {
 	struct work_for_cpu *wfc = container_of(w, struct work_for_cpu, work);
 
+	if (set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(wfc->cpu)) != 0)
+		WARN(1, "work_on_cpu on offline cpu %u?\n", wfc->cpu);
 	wfc->ret = wfc->fn(wfc->arg);
 }
+
+
+/**
+ * __work_on_cpu - run a function in a workqueue on a particular cpu
+ * @swq: the (singlethreaded) workqueue
+ * @cpu: the cpu to run on
+ * @fn: the function to run
+ * @arg: the function arg
+ *
+ * This will return the value @fn returns.
+ * It is up to the caller to ensure that the cpu doesn't go offline.
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *	int ret;
+ *	struct workqueue_struct *wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("myq");
+ *	if (unlikely(!wq))
+ *		ret = -ENOMEM;
+ *	else {
+ *		ret = __work_on_cpu(wq, cpu, fn, arg);
+ *		destroy_workqueue(wq);
+ *	}
+ */
+long __work_on_cpu(struct workqueue_struct *swq,
+		   unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
+{
+	struct work_for_cpu wfc;
+
+	INIT_WORK(&wfc.work, do_work_for_cpu);
+	wfc.fn = fn;
+	wfc.arg = arg;
+	wfc.cpu = cpu;
+	BUG_ON(!swq->singlethread);
+	queue_work(swq, &wfc.work);
+	flush_work(&wfc.work);
+
+	return wfc.ret;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__work_on_cpu);
 
 /**
  * work_on_cpu - run a function in user context on a particular cpu
@@ -995,18 +1036,16 @@ static void do_work_for_cpu(struct work_
  *
  * This will return the value @fn returns.
  * It is up to the caller to ensure that the cpu doesn't go offline.
+ *
+ * @fn is called with a lock held (the work_on_cpu workqueue's lock):
+ * if it grabs any externally-visible locks, you might get a locking
+ * inversion against others who grab those locks then call
+ * work_on_cpu().  You can use your own private workqueue to avoid
+ * this.
  */
 long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
 {
-	struct work_for_cpu wfc;
-
-	INIT_WORK(&wfc.work, do_work_for_cpu);
-	wfc.fn = fn;
-	wfc.arg = arg;
-	queue_work_on(cpu, work_on_cpu_wq, &wfc.work);
-	flush_work(&wfc.work);
-
-	return wfc.ret;
+	return __work_on_cpu(work_on_cpu_wq, cpu, fn, arg);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
 #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
@@ -1022,7 +1061,7 @@ void __init init_workqueues(void)
 	keventd_wq = create_workqueue("events");
 	BUG_ON(!keventd_wq);
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	work_on_cpu_wq = create_workqueue("work_on_cpu");
+	work_on_cpu_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("work_on_cpu");
 	BUG_ON(!work_on_cpu_wq);
 #endif
 }


  reply	other threads:[~2009-02-02 12:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-16 19:11 [PATCH 0/3] cpu freq: fix problems with work_on_cpu usage in acpi-cpufreq Mike Travis
2009-01-16 19:11 ` [PATCH 1/3] work_on_cpu: dont try to get_online_cpus() in work_on_cpu Mike Travis
2009-01-16 19:11 ` [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue Mike Travis
2009-01-24  8:15   ` Andrew Morton
     [not found]     ` <200901261711.43943.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2009-01-26  7:01       ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 17:16         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 18:35           ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 20:20             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 20:43               ` Mike Travis
2009-01-26 21:00               ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 21:27                 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 21:35                   ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 21:45                     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 22:01                       ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 22:05                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 22:16                           ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 22:20                             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 22:50                               ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 22:59                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 23:42                                   ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 23:53                                     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-27  0:42                                       ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 22:31                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 22:15                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 22:24                           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 22:37                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 22:42                               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 21:50                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 22:17                       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-26 23:01                         ` Mike Travis
2009-01-27  0:09                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27  7:15                         ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-27 17:55                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27  7:05         ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-27  7:25           ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-27 15:28             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-27 16:51               ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 13:02             ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-28 17:19               ` Mike Travis
2009-01-28 17:32                 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-29 10:39                   ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-28 19:44               ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29  1:43                 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-29  2:12                   ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-30  6:03                     ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-30  6:30                       ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-30 13:49                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30 17:08                           ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-30 21:59                         ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-30 22:17                           ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-02 12:35                             ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2009-02-03  4:06                               ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04  2:44                                 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-04  3:01                                   ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 10:41                                     ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-04 15:36                                       ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 21:35                                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-04 21:48                                           ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 21:54                                             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-04 23:45                                             ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-05 12:19                                             ` Pavel Machek
2009-02-05 17:44                                             ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-02-10  8:54                                         ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-10  9:35                                           ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-11  0:32                                             ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-16 19:11 ` [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: use work_on_cpu in acpi-cpufreq.c for drv_read and drv_write Mike Travis
2009-01-16 23:38 ` [PATCH 0/3] cpu freq: fix problems with work_on_cpu usage in acpi-cpufreq [PULL request] Mike Travis
2009-01-17 22:08   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-19 17:11     ` Mike Travis
2009-01-19 17:26       ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200902022305.51344.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=travis@sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox