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

[Jarek Poplawski]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:33:12PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/23, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:08:36PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > 
> > > First, this flag should be cleared after return from cancel_rearming_delayed_work().
> > 
> > I think this flag, if at all, probably should be cleared only
> > consciously by the owner of a work, maybe as a schedule_xxx_work
> > parameter, (but shouldn't be used from work handlers for rearming).
> > Mostly it should mean: we are closing (and have no time to chase
> > our work)...
> 
> This will change the API. Currently it is possible to do:
> 
> 	cancel_delayed_work(dwork);
> 	schedule_delayed_work(dwork, delay);
> 
> and we have such a code. With the change you propose this can't work.

Not necessarily: this all was only a concept and schedule_xxx_work
could be also a new function, if needed.

> 
> > > Also, we should add a lot of nasty checks to workqueue.c
> > 
> > Checking a flag isn't nasty - it's clear. IMHO current way of checking,
> > whether cancel succeeded, is nasty.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I _think_ we can re-use WORK_STRUCT_PENDING to improve this interface.
> > > Note that if we set WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, the work can't be queued, and
> > > dwork->timer can't be started. The only problem is that it is not so
> > > trivial to avoid races.
> > 
> > If there were no place, it would be better, then current way.
> > But WORK_STRUCT_PENDING couldn't be used for some error checking,
> > as it's now.
> 
> Look,
> 
> 	void cancel_rearming_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *dwork)
> 	{
> 		struct work_struct *work = &dwork->work;
> 		struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = get_wq_data(work);
> 		struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> 		const cpumask_t *cpu_map;
> 		int retry;
> 		int cpu;
> 
> 		if (!cwq)
> 			return;
> 
> 	retry:
> 		spin_lock_irq(&cwq->lock);
> 		list_del_init(&work->entry);
> 		__set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, work_data_bits(work));
> 		retry = try_to_del_timer_sync(&dwork->timer) < 0;
> 		spin_unlock_irq(&cwq->lock);
> 
> 		if (unlikely(retry))
> 			goto retry;
> 
> 		// the work can't be re-queued and the timer can't
> 		// be re-started due to WORK_STRUCT_PENDING
> 
> 		wq = cwq->wq;
> 		cpu_map = wq_cpu_map(wq);
> 
> 		for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, *cpu_map)
> 			wait_on_work(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu), work);
> 
> 		work_clear_pending(work);
> 	}
> 
> I think this almost works, except:
> 
> 	- we should change run_workqueue() to call work_clear_pending()
> 	  under cwq->lock. I'd like to avoid this.
> 
> 	- this is racy wrt cpu-hotplug. We should re-check get_wq_data()
> 	  when we take the lock. This is easy.
> 
> 	- we should factor out the common code with cancel_work_sync().
> 
> I may be wrong, still had no time to concentrate on this with a "clear head".
> May be tomorrow.

This looks fine. Of course, it requires to remove some debugging
currently done with _PENDING flag and it's hard to estimate this
all before you do more, but it should be more foreseeable than
current way. But the races with _PENDING could be really "funny"
without locking it everywhere. BTW - are a few locks more a real
problem, while serving a "sleeping" path? And I don't think there
is any reason to hurry... 

> 
> > > > - for a work function: to stop execution as soon as possible,
> > > > even without completing the usual job, at first possible check.
> > > 
> > > I doubt we need this "in general". It is easy to add some flag to the
> > > work_struct's container and check it in work->func() when needed.
> > 
> > Yes, but currently you cannot to behave like this e.g. with
> > "rearming" work.
> 
> Why?

OK, it's not impossible, but needs some bothering: if I simply
set some flag and my work function exits before rearming -
cancel_rearming_delayed_work can loop.

> 
> >                   And maybe a common api could save some work.
> 
> May be you are right, but still I don't think we should introduce
> the new flag to implement this imho not-so-useful feature.

Maybe you are right. Probably some code should be analysed,
to check how often such activities are needed.

Cheers,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/