Re: Fw: [PATCH -mm] workqueue: debug possible endless loop in cancel_rearming_delayed_work

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Thu Apr 26 2007 - 13:28:56 EST

On 04/26, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > void cancel_rearming_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *dwork)
> > {
> > struct work_struct *work = &dwork->work;
> > struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = get_wq_data(work);
> > int done;
> I don't understand, why you think cwq cannot be NULL here.

sure it can, this is just a template.

> >
> > do {
> > done = 1;
> > spin_lock_irq(&cwq->lock);
> >
> > if (!list_empty(&work->entry))
> > list_del_init(&work->entry);
> BTW, isn't needs_a_good_name needles after this and after del_timer positive?

no, we still need it. work->func() may be running on another CPU as well.

> > else if (test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, work_data_bits(work)))
> > done = del_timer(&dwork->timer)
> If this runs while a work function is fired in run_workqueue,
> it sets _PENDING bit, but if the work skips rearming, we have probably
> endless loop, again.

No, if the work skips rearming (or didn't yet), we set WORK_STRUCT_PENDING

> It is something alike to the current
> way, with some added measures: you try to shoot a work on the run,
> while queued or timer_pending, plus the _PENDING flag set, so it seems,
> there is some risk of longer than planed looping.

Sorry, can't understand. done == 0 means that the queueing in progress,
this work should be placed on cwq->worklist very soon, most probably
right after we drop cwq->lock.

> I have to look at this more, at home and, if something new, I'll write
> tomorrow. So, the good news, is you should have enough sleep this time!

Thanks for review!


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at