From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1759284AbZBERFo@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759284AbZBERFo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:44 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756248AbZBERF1
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:27 -0500
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:39654 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1759532AbZBERF0 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:26 -0500
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:01:56 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: not allow recursion run_workqueue
Message-ID: <20090205170156.GA25517@redhat.com>
References: <497838F0.7020408@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090122093046.GC5891@nowhere> <20090122093649.GD24758@elte.hu> <c62985530901220306p78ea541cs28912a844297b304@mail.gmail.com> <1232622615.4890.114.camel@laptop> <498AA0F1.2030003@cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <498AA0F1.2030003@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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?

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.