You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There was no strong reason to or not to flush barrier work items in
flush_workqueue(). And we have to make barrier work items not participate
in nr_active so we had been using WORK_NO_COLOR for them which also makes
them can't be flushed by flush_workqueue().
And the users of flush_workqueue() often do not intend to wait barrier work
items issued by flush_work(). That made the choice sound perfect.
But barrier work items have reference to internal structure (pool_workqueue)
and the worker thread[s] is/are still busy for the workqueue user when the
barrrier work items are not done. So it is reasonable to make flush_workqueue()
also watch for flush_work() to make it more robust.
And a problem[1] reported by Li Zhe shows that we need such robustness.
The warning logs are listed below:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 19336 at kernel/workqueue.c:4430 destroy_workqueue+0x11a/0x2f0
*****
destroy_workqueue: test_workqueue9 has the following busy pwq
pwq 4: cpus=2 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=0/1 refcnt=2
in-flight: 5658:wq_barrier_func
Showing busy workqueues and worker pools:
*****
It shows that even after drain_workqueue() returns, the barrier work item
is still in flight and the pwq (and a worker) is still busy on it.
The problem is caused by flush_workqueue() not watching flush_work():
Thread A Worker
/* normal work item with linked */
process_scheduled_works()
destroy_workqueue() process_one_work()
drain_workqueue() /* run normal work item */
/-- pwq_dec_nr_in_flight()
flush_workqueue() <---/
/* the last normal work item is done */
sanity_check process_one_work()
/-- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock)
raw_spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock) <-/ /* maybe preempt */
*WARNING* wq_barrier_func()
/* maybe preempt by cond_resched() */
Thread A can get the pool lock after the Worker unlocks the pool lock before
running wq_barrier_func(). And if there is any preemption happen around
wq_barrier_func(), destroy_workqueue()'s sanity check is more likely to
get the lock and catch it. (Note: preemption is not necessary to cause the bug,
the unlocking is enough to possibly trigger the WARNING.)
A simple solution might be just executing all linked barrier work items
once without releasing pool lock after the head work item's
pwq_dec_nr_in_flight(). But this solution has two problems:
1) the head work item might also be barrier work item when the user-queued
work item is cancelled. For example:
thread 1: thread 2:
queue_work(wq, &my_work)
flush_work(&my_work)
cancel_work_sync(&my_work);
/* Neiter my_work nor the barrier work is scheduled. */
destroy_workqueue(wq);
/* This is an easier way to catch the WARNING. */
2) there might be too much linked barrier work items and running them
all once without releasing pool lock just causes trouble.
The only solution is to make flush_workqueue() aslo watch barrier work
items. So we have to assign a color to these barrier work items which
is the color of the head (user-queued) work item.
Assigning a color doesn't cause any problem in ative management, because
the prvious patch made barrier work items not participate in nr_active
via WORK_STRUCT_INACTIVE rather than reliance on the (old) WORK_NO_COLOR.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Reported-by: Li Zhe <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
0 commit comments