From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: relax lockdep annotation on flush_work()
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:20:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201012291520.25576.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101229125711.GL488@htj.dyndns.org>
On Wednesday, December 29, 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, the lockdep annotation in flush_work() requires exclusive
> access on the workqueue the target work is queued on and triggers
> warning if a work is trying to flush another work on the same
> workqueue; however, this is no longer true as workqueues can now
> execute multiple works concurrently.
>
> This patch adds lock_map_acquire_read() and make process_one_work()
> hold read access to the workqueue while executing a work and
> start_flush_work() check for write access if concurrnecy level is one
> and read access if higher.
>
> This better represents what's going on and removes spurious lockdep
> warnings which are triggered by fake dependency chain created through
> flush_work().
The spurious lockdep warning I've been observing is not printed any more with
the patch applied.
Thanks,
Rafael
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
> ---
> How should this one be routed? The lockdep part can be split, merged
> back into workqueue tree and so on but that seems a bit too much. If
> it's okay, I'll route this through the workqueue tree. Going through
> the lockdep tree is fine too.
>
> Thanks.
>
> include/linux/lockdep.h | 3 +++
> kernel/workqueue.c | 8 ++++++--
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index 71c09b2..9f19430 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -522,12 +522,15 @@ static inline void print_irqtrace_events(struct task_struct *curr)
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> # ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> # define lock_map_acquire(l) lock_acquire(l, 0, 0, 0, 2, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> +# define lock_map_acquire_read(l) lock_acquire(l, 0, 0, 2, 2, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> # else
> # define lock_map_acquire(l) lock_acquire(l, 0, 0, 0, 1, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> +# define lock_map_acquire_read(l) lock_acquire(l, 0, 0, 2, 1, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> # endif
> # define lock_map_release(l) lock_release(l, 1, _THIS_IP_)
> #else
> # define lock_map_acquire(l) do { } while (0)
> +# define lock_map_acquire_read(l) do { } while (0)
> # define lock_map_release(l) do { } while (0)
> #endif
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 8ee6ec8..85f8f7b 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -1840,7 +1840,7 @@ __acquires(&gcwq->lock)
> spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
>
> work_clear_pending(work);
> - lock_map_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> + lock_map_acquire_read(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> lock_map_acquire(&lockdep_map);
> trace_workqueue_execute_start(work);
> f(work);
> @@ -2384,8 +2384,12 @@ static bool start_flush_work(struct work_struct *work, struct wq_barrier *barr,
> insert_wq_barrier(cwq, barr, work, worker);
> spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
>
> - lock_map_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> + if (cwq->wq->saved_max_active > 1)
> + lock_map_acquire_read(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> + else
> + lock_map_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> lock_map_release(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> +
> return true;
> already_gone:
> spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-29 14:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-29 12:57 [PATCH] workqueue: relax lockdep annotation on flush_work() Tejun Heo
2010-12-29 14:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2011-01-03 9:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-03 14:17 ` [PATCH UPDATED] " Tejun Heo
2011-01-03 14:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-03 15:00 ` Tejun Heo
2011-01-03 15:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-03 15:20 ` Tejun Heo
2011-01-03 15:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-03 21:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-01-09 22:34 ` Tejun Heo
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=201012291520.25576.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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