lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] workqueue: Hold wq_pool_mutex while affining tasks to wq_unbound_cpumask
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 7:40 PM Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/08/22 11:40, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > On 2022/8/2 16:41, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> When unbind_workers() reads wq_unbound_cpumask to set the affinity of
> >> freshly-unbound kworkers, it only holds wq_pool_attach_mutex. This isn't
> >> sufficient as wq_unbound_cpumask is only protected by wq_pool_mutex.
> >>
> >> This is made more obvious as of recent commit
> >>
> >> 46a4d679ef88 ("workqueue: Avoid a false warning in unbind_workers()")
> >>
> >> e.g.
> >>
> >> unbind_workers() workqueue_set_unbound_cpumask()
> >> kthread_set_per_cpu(p, -1);
> >> if (cpumask_intersects(wq_unbound_cpumask, cpu_active_mask))
> >> cpumask_copy(wq_unbound_cpumask, cpumask);
> >> WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, wq_unbound_cpumask) < 0);
> >>
> >> Make workqueue_offline_cpu() invoke unbind_workers() with wq_pool_mutex
> >> held.
> >
> > I would prefer to protect wq_unbound_cpumask with wq_pool_attach_mutex.
>
> That looks alright to me, do you want to push that separately as it's a
> standalone patch, or should I carry it with this series?
>

I'm Okay with both.

It needs review from Tejun. If Tejun has not queued it before you send
a new update of this series, I will be glad if you carry it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-05 04:43    [W:0.133 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site