From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 3/3] workqueue: fix possible idle worker depletion during CPU_ONLINE
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:53:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50495395.10407@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120906200802.GI29092@google.com>
On 09/07/2012 04:08 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>From 985aafbf530834a9ab16348300adc7cbf35aab76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:50:41 -0700
>
> To simplify both normal and CPU hotplug paths, while CPU hotplug is in
> progress, manager_mutex is held to prevent one of the workers from
> becoming a manager and creating or destroying workers; unfortunately,
> it currently may lead to idle worker depletion which in turn can lead
> to deadlock under extreme circumstances.
>
> Idle workers aren't allowed to become busy if there's no other idle
> worker left to create more idle workers, but during CPU_ONLINE
> gcwq_associate() is holding all managerships and all the idle workers
> can proceed to become busy before gcwq_associate() is finished.
The any code which grab the manage_mutex can cause the bug.
Not only rebind_workers(), but also gcwq_unbind_fn().
Not only during CPU_ONLINE, but also during CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
>
> This patch fixes the bug by releasing manager_mutexes before letting
> the rebound idle workers go. This ensures that by the time idle
> workers check whether management is necessary, CPU_ONLINE already has
> released the positions.
This can't fix the problem.
+ gcwq_claim_management(gcwq);
+ spin_lock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
If manage_workers() happens between the two line, the problem occurs!.
My non_manager_role_manager_mutex_unlock() approach has the same idea: release manage_mutex before release gcwq->lock.
but non_manager_role_manager_mutex_unlock() approach will detect the fail reason of failing to grab manage_lock and go to sleep.
rebind_workers()/gcwq_unbind_fn() will release manage_mutex and then wait up some before release gcwq->lock.
==========================
A "release manage_mutex before release gcwq->lock" approach.(no one likes it, I think)
/* claim manager positions of all pools */
static void gcwq_claim_management_and_lock(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
{
struct worker_pool *pool, *pool_fail;
again:
spin_lock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq) {
if (!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex))
goto fail;
}
return;
fail: /* unlikely, because manage_workers() are very unlike path in my box */
for_each_worker_pool(pool_fail, gcwq) {
if (pool_fail != pool)
mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_mutex);
else
break;
}
spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
cpu_relax();
goto again;
}
/* release manager positions */
static void gcwq_release_management_and_unlock(struct global_cwq *gcwq)
{
struct worker_pool *pool;
for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq)
mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_mutex);
spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
}
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
> 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index b19170b..74487ef 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -1454,10 +1454,19 @@ retry:
> }
>
> /*
> - * All idle workers are rebound and waiting for %WORKER_REBIND to
> - * be cleared inside idle_worker_rebind(). Clear and release.
> - * Clearing %WORKER_REBIND from this foreign context is safe
> - * because these workers are still guaranteed to be idle.
> + * At this point, each pool is guaranteed to have at least one idle
> + * worker and all idle workers are waiting for WORKER_REBIND to
> + * clear. Release management before releasing idle workers;
> + * otherwise, they can all go become busy as we're holding the
> + * manager_mutexes, which can lead to deadlock as we don't actually
> + * create new workers.
> + */
> + gcwq_release_management(gcwq);
> +
> + /*
> + * Clear %WORKER_REBIND and release. Clearing it from this foreign
> + * context is safe because these workers are still guaranteed to be
> + * idle.
> *
> * We need to make sure all idle workers passed WORKER_REBIND wait
> * in idle_worker_rebind() before returning; otherwise, workers can
> @@ -1467,6 +1476,7 @@ retry:
> INIT_COMPLETION(idle_rebind.done);
>
> for_each_worker_pool(pool, gcwq) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(list_empty(&pool->idle_list));
> list_for_each_entry(worker, &pool->idle_list, entry) {
> worker->flags &= ~WORKER_REBIND;
> idle_rebind.cnt++;
> @@ -1481,8 +1491,6 @@ retry:
> } else {
> spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
> }
> -
> - gcwq_release_management(gcwq);
> }
>
> static struct worker *alloc_worker(void)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-07 1:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-06 20:06 [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 1/3] workqueue: break out gcwq->lock locking from gcwq_claim/release_management_and_[un]lock() Tejun Heo
2012-09-06 20:07 ` [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 2/3] workqueue: rename rebind_workers() to gcwq_associate() and let it handle locking and DISASSOCIATED clearing Tejun Heo
2012-09-06 20:08 ` [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 3/3] workqueue: fix possible idle worker depletion during CPU_ONLINE Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 1:53 ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2012-09-07 19:25 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 3:10 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-07 19:29 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 20:22 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 20:34 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 23:05 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 23:07 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 23:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-08 17:18 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-08 17:29 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-08 17:32 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-08 17:40 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-08 17:41 ` 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=50495395.10407@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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