Messages in this thread | | | From | Z qiang <> | Date | Wed, 24 May 2023 11:39:29 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] workqueue: Fix warning triggered when nr_running is checked in worker_enter_idle() |
| |
> > Hello, > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 09:40:16AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:09:41PM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c > > > index 9c5c1cfa478f..329b84c42062 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c > > > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c > > > @@ -1144,13 +1144,12 @@ void wq_worker_tick(struct task_struct *task) > > > * longer than wq_cpu_intensive_thresh_us, it's automatically marked > > > * CPU_INTENSIVE to avoid stalling other concurrency-managed work items. > > > */ > > > - if ((worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING) || > > > + if ((worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING) || worker->sleeping || > > > worker->task->se.sum_exec_runtime - worker->current_at < > > > wq_cpu_intensive_thresh_us * NSEC_PER_USEC) > > > return; > > > > Ah, right, this isn't just interrupted read-modify-write. It has to consider > > sleeping. This is subtle. We'll definitely need more comments. Will think > > more about it. > > So, there already are enough barriers to make this safe but that's kinda > brittle because e.g. it'd depend on the barrier in preempt_disable() which > is there for an unrelated reason. Can you please change ->sleeping accesses > to use WRITE/READ_ONCE() and explain in wq_worker_tick() that the worker > doesn't contribute to ->nr_running while ->sleeping regardless of > NOT_RUNNING and thus the operation shouldn't proceed? We probably need to > make it prettier but I think that should do for now.
Thanks for the suggestion, I will resend.
> > Thanks. > > -- > tejun
| |