Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:02:14 +0530 | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue() |
| |
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 03:43:19AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Taking workqueue_mutex() unconditionally in flush_workqueue() means > > that we'll deadlock if a single-threaded workqueue callback handler calls > > flush_workqueue(). > > Well. But flush_workqueue() drops workqueue_mutex before going to sleep ?
... and acquires it again after woken from sleep. That can be a problem, which will lead to the problem described here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/7/374
In brief:
keventd thread hotplug thread -------------- --------------
run_workqueue() | work_fn() | flush_workqueue() | flush_cpu_workqueue | cpu_down() mutex_unlock(wq_mutex); | (above opens window for hotplug) mutex_lock(wq_mutex); | /* bring down cpu */ wait_for_completition(); notifier(CPU_DEAD, ..) | workqueue_cpu_callback | cleanup_workqueue_thread | kthread_stop() | | mutex_lock(wq_mutex); <- Can deadlock
The kthread_stop() will wait for keventd() thread to exit, but keventd() is blocked on mutex_lock(wq_mutex) leading to a deadlock.
> > flush_workqueue(single_threaded_wq); > ... > mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex); > ... > mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex); > wait_for_completition(); > handler runs, > calls flush_workqueue(), > workqueue_mutex is free
-- Regards, vatsa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |