Hello all,
This is _RFC_.
I want to request for comments about if it's reasonable conceptually. If
yes, I want to resend after working it more carefully.
Could you let me know your opinions about this?
----->8-----
>From 448360c343477fff63df766544eec4620657a59e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:35:07 +0900
Subject: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
We introduced the following commit to detect deadlocks caused by
wait_for_completion() in flush_{workqueue, work}() and other locks. But
now LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS is introduced, such works are automatically done
by LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS. So it doesn't have to be done manually anymore.
Removed it.
commit 4e6045f134784f4b158b3c0f7a282b04bd816887
workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/workqueue.h | 43 -------------------------------------------
kernel/workqueue.c | 38 --------------------------------------
2 files changed, 81 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/workqueue.h b/include/linux/workqueue.h
index db6dc9d..91d0e14 100644
--- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
+++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
@@ -8,7 +8,6 @@
#include <linux/timer.h>
#include <linux/linkage.h>
#include <linux/bitops.h>
-#include <linux/lockdep.h>
#include <linux/threads.h>
#include <linux/atomic.h>
#include <linux/cpumask.h>
@@ -101,9 +100,6 @@ struct work_struct {
atomic_long_t data;
struct list_head entry;
work_func_t func;
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
- struct lockdep_map lockdep_map;
-#endif
};
#define WORK_DATA_INIT() ATOMIC_LONG_INIT((unsigned long)WORK_STRUCT_NO_POOL)
@@ -154,23 +150,10 @@ struct execute_work {
struct work_struct work;
};
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
-/*
- * NB: because we have to copy the lockdep_map, setting _key
- * here is required, otherwise it could get initialised to the
- * copy of the lockdep_map!
- */
-#define __WORK_INIT_LOCKDEP_MAP(n, k) \
- .lockdep_map = STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT(n, k),
-#else
-#define __WORK_INIT_LOCKDEP_MAP(n, k)
-#endif
-
#define __WORK_INITIALIZER(n, f) { \
.data = WORK_DATA_STATIC_INIT(), \
.entry = { &(n).entry, &(n).entry }, \
.func = (f), \
- __WORK_INIT_LOCKDEP_MAP(#n, &(n)) \
}
#define __DELAYED_WORK_INITIALIZER(n, f, tflags) { \
@@ -211,26 +194,13 @@ static inline void destroy_delayed_work_on_stack(struct delayed_work *work) { }
* assignment of the work data initializer allows the compiler
* to generate better code.
*/
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
#define __INIT_WORK(_work, _func, _onstack) \
do { \
- static struct lock_class_key __key; \
- \
__init_work((_work), _onstack); \
(_work)->data = (atomic_long_t) WORK_DATA_INIT(); \
- lockdep_init_map(&(_work)->lockdep_map, #_work, &__key, 0); \
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&(_work)->entry); \
(_work)->func = (_func); \
} while (0)
-#else
-#define __INIT_WORK(_work, _func, _onstack) \
- do { \
- __init_work((_work), _onstack); \
- (_work)->data = (atomic_long_t) WORK_DATA_INIT(); \
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&(_work)->entry); \
- (_work)->func = (_func); \
- } while (0)
-#endif
#define INIT_WORK(_work, _func) \
__INIT_WORK((_work), (_func), 0)
@@ -392,22 +362,9 @@ enum {
* RETURNS:
* Pointer to the allocated workqueue on success, %NULL on failure.
*/
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
-#define alloc_workqueue(fmt, flags, max_active, args...) \
-({ \
- static struct lock_class_key __key; \
- const char *__lock_name; \
- \
- __lock_name = #fmt#args; \
- \
- __alloc_workqueue_key((fmt), (flags), (max_active), \
- &__key, __lock_name, ##args); \
-})
-#else
#define alloc_workqueue(fmt, flags, max_active, args...) \
__alloc_workqueue_key((fmt), (flags), (max_active), \
NULL, NULL, ##args)
-#endif
/**
* alloc_ordered_workqueue - allocate an ordered workqueue
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index f128b3b..87d4bc2 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@
#include <linux/freezer.h>
#include <linux/kallsyms.h>
#include <linux/debug_locks.h>
-#include <linux/lockdep.h>
#include <linux/idr.h>
#include <linux/jhash.h>
#include <linux/hashtable.h>
@@ -260,9 +259,6 @@ struct workqueue_struct {
#ifdef CONFIG_SYSFS
struct wq_device *wq_dev; /* I: for sysfs interface */
#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
- struct lockdep_map lockdep_map;
-#endif
char name[WQ_NAME_LEN]; /* I: workqueue name */
/*
@@ -2024,18 +2020,7 @@ static void process_one_work(struct worker *worker, struct work_struct *work)
bool cpu_intensive = pwq->wq->flags & WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE;
int work_color;
struct worker *collision;
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
- /*
- * It is permissible to free the struct work_struct from
- * inside the function that is called from it, this we need to
- * take into account for lockdep too. To avoid bogus "held
- * lock freed" warnings as well as problems when looking into
- * work->lockdep_map, make a copy and use that here.
- */
- struct lockdep_map lockdep_map;
- lockdep_copy_map(&lockdep_map, &work->lockdep_map);
-#endif
/* ensure we're on the correct CPU */
WARN_ON_ONCE(!(pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED) &&
raw_smp_processor_id() != pool->cpu);
@@ -2091,8 +2076,6 @@ static void process_one_work(struct worker *worker, struct work_struct *work)
spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
- lock_map_acquire_read(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
- lock_map_acquire(&lockdep_map);
crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC);
trace_workqueue_execute_start(work);
worker->current_func(work);
@@ -2102,8 +2085,6 @@ static void process_one_work(struct worker *worker, struct work_struct *work)
*/
trace_workqueue_execute_end(work);
crossrelease_hist_end(XHLOCK_PROC);
- lock_map_release(&lockdep_map);
- lock_map_release(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
if (unlikely(in_atomic() || lockdep_depth(current) > 0)) {
pr_err("BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic: %s/0x%08x/%d\n"
@@ -2598,9 +2579,6 @@ void flush_workqueue(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
if (WARN_ON(!wq_online))
return;
- lock_map_acquire(&wq->lockdep_map);
- lock_map_release(&wq->lockdep_map);
-
mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
/*
@@ -2825,18 +2803,6 @@ static bool start_flush_work(struct work_struct *work, struct wq_barrier *barr)
insert_wq_barrier(pwq, barr, work, worker);
spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
- /*
- * If @max_active is 1 or rescuer is in use, flushing another work
- * item on the same workqueue may lead to deadlock. Make sure the
- * flusher is not running on the same workqueue by verifying write
- * access.
- */
- if (pwq->wq->saved_max_active == 1 || pwq->wq->rescuer)
- lock_map_acquire(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
- else
- lock_map_acquire_read(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
- lock_map_release(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
-
return true;
already_gone:
spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
@@ -2861,9 +2827,6 @@ bool flush_work(struct work_struct *work)
if (WARN_ON(!wq_online))
return false;
- lock_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map);
- lock_map_release(&work->lockdep_map);
-
if (start_flush_work(work, &barr)) {
wait_for_completion(&barr.done);
destroy_work_on_stack(&barr.work);
@@ -3996,7 +3959,6 @@ struct workqueue_struct *__alloc_workqueue_key(const char *fmt,
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq->flusher_overflow);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq->maydays);
- lockdep_init_map(&wq->lockdep_map, lock_name, key, 0);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq->list);
if (alloc_and_link_pwqs(wq) < 0)
--
1.9.1
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:41:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This is _RFC_.
>
> I want to request for comments about if it's reasonable conceptually. If
> yes, I want to resend after working it more carefully.
>
> Could you let me know your opinions about this?
+cc [email protected]
+cc [email protected]
> ----->8-----
> >From 448360c343477fff63df766544eec4620657a59e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:35:07 +0900
> Subject: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
>
> We introduced the following commit to detect deadlocks caused by
> wait_for_completion() in flush_{workqueue, work}() and other locks. But
> now LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS is introduced, such works are automatically done
> by LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS. So it doesn't have to be done manually anymore.
> Removed it.
>
> commit 4e6045f134784f4b158b3c0f7a282b04bd816887
> workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep
>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/workqueue.h | 43 -------------------------------------------
> kernel/workqueue.c | 38 --------------------------------------
> 2 files changed, 81 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/workqueue.h b/include/linux/workqueue.h
> index db6dc9d..91d0e14 100644
> --- a/include/linux/workqueue.h
> +++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h
> @@ -8,7 +8,6 @@
> #include <linux/timer.h>
> #include <linux/linkage.h>
> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> -#include <linux/lockdep.h>
> #include <linux/threads.h>
> #include <linux/atomic.h>
> #include <linux/cpumask.h>
> @@ -101,9 +100,6 @@ struct work_struct {
> atomic_long_t data;
> struct list_head entry;
> work_func_t func;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> - struct lockdep_map lockdep_map;
> -#endif
> };
>
> #define WORK_DATA_INIT() ATOMIC_LONG_INIT((unsigned long)WORK_STRUCT_NO_POOL)
> @@ -154,23 +150,10 @@ struct execute_work {
> struct work_struct work;
> };
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> -/*
> - * NB: because we have to copy the lockdep_map, setting _key
> - * here is required, otherwise it could get initialised to the
> - * copy of the lockdep_map!
> - */
> -#define __WORK_INIT_LOCKDEP_MAP(n, k) \
> - .lockdep_map = STATIC_LOCKDEP_MAP_INIT(n, k),
> -#else
> -#define __WORK_INIT_LOCKDEP_MAP(n, k)
> -#endif
> -
> #define __WORK_INITIALIZER(n, f) { \
> .data = WORK_DATA_STATIC_INIT(), \
> .entry = { &(n).entry, &(n).entry }, \
> .func = (f), \
> - __WORK_INIT_LOCKDEP_MAP(#n, &(n)) \
> }
>
> #define __DELAYED_WORK_INITIALIZER(n, f, tflags) { \
> @@ -211,26 +194,13 @@ static inline void destroy_delayed_work_on_stack(struct delayed_work *work) { }
> * assignment of the work data initializer allows the compiler
> * to generate better code.
> */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> #define __INIT_WORK(_work, _func, _onstack) \
> do { \
> - static struct lock_class_key __key; \
> - \
> __init_work((_work), _onstack); \
> (_work)->data = (atomic_long_t) WORK_DATA_INIT(); \
> - lockdep_init_map(&(_work)->lockdep_map, #_work, &__key, 0); \
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&(_work)->entry); \
> (_work)->func = (_func); \
> } while (0)
> -#else
> -#define __INIT_WORK(_work, _func, _onstack) \
> - do { \
> - __init_work((_work), _onstack); \
> - (_work)->data = (atomic_long_t) WORK_DATA_INIT(); \
> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&(_work)->entry); \
> - (_work)->func = (_func); \
> - } while (0)
> -#endif
>
> #define INIT_WORK(_work, _func) \
> __INIT_WORK((_work), (_func), 0)
> @@ -392,22 +362,9 @@ enum {
> * RETURNS:
> * Pointer to the allocated workqueue on success, %NULL on failure.
> */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> -#define alloc_workqueue(fmt, flags, max_active, args...) \
> -({ \
> - static struct lock_class_key __key; \
> - const char *__lock_name; \
> - \
> - __lock_name = #fmt#args; \
> - \
> - __alloc_workqueue_key((fmt), (flags), (max_active), \
> - &__key, __lock_name, ##args); \
> -})
> -#else
> #define alloc_workqueue(fmt, flags, max_active, args...) \
> __alloc_workqueue_key((fmt), (flags), (max_active), \
> NULL, NULL, ##args)
> -#endif
>
> /**
> * alloc_ordered_workqueue - allocate an ordered workqueue
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index f128b3b..87d4bc2 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,6 @@
> #include <linux/freezer.h>
> #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
> #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
> -#include <linux/lockdep.h>
> #include <linux/idr.h>
> #include <linux/jhash.h>
> #include <linux/hashtable.h>
> @@ -260,9 +259,6 @@ struct workqueue_struct {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SYSFS
> struct wq_device *wq_dev; /* I: for sysfs interface */
> #endif
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> - struct lockdep_map lockdep_map;
> -#endif
> char name[WQ_NAME_LEN]; /* I: workqueue name */
>
> /*
> @@ -2024,18 +2020,7 @@ static void process_one_work(struct worker *worker, struct work_struct *work)
> bool cpu_intensive = pwq->wq->flags & WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE;
> int work_color;
> struct worker *collision;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> - /*
> - * It is permissible to free the struct work_struct from
> - * inside the function that is called from it, this we need to
> - * take into account for lockdep too. To avoid bogus "held
> - * lock freed" warnings as well as problems when looking into
> - * work->lockdep_map, make a copy and use that here.
> - */
> - struct lockdep_map lockdep_map;
>
> - lockdep_copy_map(&lockdep_map, &work->lockdep_map);
> -#endif
> /* ensure we're on the correct CPU */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!(pool->flags & POOL_DISASSOCIATED) &&
> raw_smp_processor_id() != pool->cpu);
> @@ -2091,8 +2076,6 @@ static void process_one_work(struct worker *worker, struct work_struct *work)
>
> spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
> - lock_map_acquire_read(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> - lock_map_acquire(&lockdep_map);
> crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC);
> trace_workqueue_execute_start(work);
> worker->current_func(work);
> @@ -2102,8 +2085,6 @@ static void process_one_work(struct worker *worker, struct work_struct *work)
> */
> trace_workqueue_execute_end(work);
> crossrelease_hist_end(XHLOCK_PROC);
> - lock_map_release(&lockdep_map);
> - lock_map_release(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
>
> if (unlikely(in_atomic() || lockdep_depth(current) > 0)) {
> pr_err("BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic: %s/0x%08x/%d\n"
> @@ -2598,9 +2579,6 @@ void flush_workqueue(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
> if (WARN_ON(!wq_online))
> return;
>
> - lock_map_acquire(&wq->lockdep_map);
> - lock_map_release(&wq->lockdep_map);
> -
> mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
>
> /*
> @@ -2825,18 +2803,6 @@ static bool start_flush_work(struct work_struct *work, struct wq_barrier *barr)
> insert_wq_barrier(pwq, barr, work, worker);
> spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
> - /*
> - * If @max_active is 1 or rescuer is in use, flushing another work
> - * item on the same workqueue may lead to deadlock. Make sure the
> - * flusher is not running on the same workqueue by verifying write
> - * access.
> - */
> - if (pwq->wq->saved_max_active == 1 || pwq->wq->rescuer)
> - lock_map_acquire(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> - else
> - lock_map_acquire_read(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> - lock_map_release(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map);
> -
> return true;
> already_gone:
> spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
> @@ -2861,9 +2827,6 @@ bool flush_work(struct work_struct *work)
> if (WARN_ON(!wq_online))
> return false;
>
> - lock_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map);
> - lock_map_release(&work->lockdep_map);
> -
> if (start_flush_work(work, &barr)) {
> wait_for_completion(&barr.done);
> destroy_work_on_stack(&barr.work);
> @@ -3996,7 +3959,6 @@ struct workqueue_struct *__alloc_workqueue_key(const char *fmt,
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq->flusher_overflow);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq->maydays);
>
> - lockdep_init_map(&wq->lockdep_map, lock_name, key, 0);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq->list);
>
> if (alloc_and_link_pwqs(wq) < 0)
> --
> 1.9.1
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:41:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This is _RFC_.
>
> I want to request for comments about if it's reasonable conceptually. If
> yes, I want to resend after working it more carefully.
>
> Could you let me know your opinions about this?
>
> ----->8-----
> From 448360c343477fff63df766544eec4620657a59e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:35:07 +0900
> Subject: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
>
> We introduced the following commit to detect deadlocks caused by
> wait_for_completion() in flush_{workqueue, work}() and other locks. But
> now LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS is introduced, such works are automatically done
> by LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS. So it doesn't have to be done manually anymore.
> Removed it.
I'm not following lockdep development, so can't really comment but if
you're saying that wq can retain the same level of protection while
not having explicit annotations, conceptually, it's of course great.
However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
item on a workqueue w/ max_active of 1?
Thanks.
--
tejun
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Tejun Heo <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:41:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> This is _RFC_.
>>
>> I want to request for comments about if it's reasonable conceptually. If
>> yes, I want to resend after working it more carefully.
>>
>> Could you let me know your opinions about this?
>>
>> ----->8-----
>> From 448360c343477fff63df766544eec4620657a59e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
>> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:35:07 +0900
>> Subject: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
>>
>> We introduced the following commit to detect deadlocks caused by
>> wait_for_completion() in flush_{workqueue, work}() and other locks. But
>> now LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS is introduced, such works are automatically done
>> by LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS. So it doesn't have to be done manually anymore.
>> Removed it.
>
> I'm not following lockdep development, so can't really comment but if
> you're saying that wq can retain the same level of protection while
> not having explicit annotations, conceptually, it's of course great.
Well.. I don't think it's the same level currently. But, I can make it with some
modification. I expect the wq code to become much simpler.
> However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
I think it must be distinguished with what it actually waits for, e.i.
completion
variables instead of work or wq. I will make it next week and let you know.
> item on a workqueue w/ max_active of 1?
I will answer it wrt max_active == 1 next week. I need to review wq code.
--
Thanks,
Byungchul
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:41:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This is _RFC_.
>
> I want to request for comments about if it's reasonable conceptually. If
> yes, I want to resend after working it more carefully.
>
> Could you let me know your opinions about this?
>
> ----->8-----
> From 448360c343477fff63df766544eec4620657a59e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:35:07 +0900
> Subject: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
>
> We introduced the following commit to detect deadlocks caused by
> wait_for_completion() in flush_{workqueue, work}() and other locks. But
> now LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS is introduced, such works are automatically done
> by LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS. So it doesn't have to be done manually anymore.
> Removed it.
>
No.. the existing annotation is strictly better because it will _always_
warn. It doesn't need to first observe things just right.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:41:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> This is _RFC_.
>>
>> I want to request for comments about if it's reasonable conceptually. If
>> yes, I want to resend after working it more carefully.
>>
>> Could you let me know your opinions about this?
>>
>> ----->8-----
>> From 448360c343477fff63df766544eec4620657a59e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
>> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:35:07 +0900
>> Subject: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
>>
>> We introduced the following commit to detect deadlocks caused by
>> wait_for_completion() in flush_{workqueue, work}() and other locks. But
>> now LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS is introduced, such works are automatically done
>> by LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS. So it doesn't have to be done manually anymore.
>> Removed it.
>>
>
> No.. the existing annotation is strictly better because it will _always_
> warn. It doesn't need to first observe things just right.
Right. That is exactly why I replied to TJ like:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/25/490
--
Thanks,
Byungchul
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 06:34:43AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:41:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > This is _RFC_.
> >
> > I want to request for comments about if it's reasonable conceptually. If
> > yes, I want to resend after working it more carefully.
> >
> > Could you let me know your opinions about this?
> >
> > ----->8-----
> > From 448360c343477fff63df766544eec4620657a59e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
> > Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:35:07 +0900
> > Subject: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
> >
> > We introduced the following commit to detect deadlocks caused by
> > wait_for_completion() in flush_{workqueue, work}() and other locks. But
> > now LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS is introduced, such works are automatically done
> > by LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS. So it doesn't have to be done manually anymore.
> > Removed it.
>
> I'm not following lockdep development, so can't really comment but if
> you're saying that wq can retain the same level of protection while
> not having explicit annotations, conceptually, it's of course great.
> However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
> item on a workqueue w/ max_active of 1?
Do you mean the following?
process_one_work()
acquire(W1) <---------+- distinguishable?
work->fn() |
flush_work(W2) |
acquire(W2) <---+
release(W2)
release(W1)
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:55:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 05:41:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > This is _RFC_.
> >
> > I want to request for comments about if it's reasonable conceptually. If
> > yes, I want to resend after working it more carefully.
> >
> > Could you let me know your opinions about this?
> >
> > ----->8-----
> > From 448360c343477fff63df766544eec4620657a59e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
> > Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:35:07 +0900
> > Subject: [RFC] workqueue: remove manual lockdep uses to detect deadlocks
> >
> > We introduced the following commit to detect deadlocks caused by
> > wait_for_completion() in flush_{workqueue, work}() and other locks. But
> > now LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS is introduced, such works are automatically done
> > by LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS. So it doesn't have to be done manually anymore.
> > Removed it.
> >
>
> No.. the existing annotation is strictly better because it will _always_
> warn. It doesn't need to first observe things just right.
In addition, the existing annotation is never good, but just able to
detect deadlocks aggresively. However, it's inevitable to create false
dependencies. I mean some dependencies between work/wq and any locks
inside of each work might be false ones sometimes.
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:49:26AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
>
> I think it must be distinguished with what it actually waits for, e.i.
> completion
> variables instead of work or wq. I will make it next week and let you know.
So no. The existing annotations are strictly better than relying on
cross-release.
As you know the problem with cross-release is that it is timing
dependent. You need to actually observe the problematic sequence before
it can warn, and only the whole instance->class mapping saves us from
actually hitting the deadlock.
Cross-release can result in deadlocks without warnings. If you were to
run:
mutex_lock(A);
mutex_lock(A);
complete(C);
wait_for_completion(C);
You'd deadlock without issue. Only if we observe this:
mutex_lock(A);
wait_for_completion(C);
mutex_lock(A);
complete(C);
Where we acquire A after wait_for_completion() but before complete()
will we observe the deadlock.
The same would be true for using cross-release for workqueues as well,
something like:
W:
mutex_lock(A)
mutex_lock(A)
flush_work(W)
would go unreported whereas the current workqueue annotation will
generate a splat.
This does not mean cross-release isn't worth it, its better than nothing,
but its strictly weaker than traditional annotations.
So where a traditional annotation is possible, we should use them.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:49:26AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
> >
> > I think it must be distinguished with what it actually waits for, e.i.
> > completion
> > variables instead of work or wq. I will make it next week and let you know.
>
> So no. The existing annotations are strictly better than relying on
> cross-release.
Thank you for exaplanation but, as I already said, this is why I said
"I don't think it's the same level currently. But, I can make it with
some modification." to TJ:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg1479560.html
And also I mentioned we might need the current code inevitably but, the
existing annotations are never good and why here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg1480173.html
> As you know the problem with cross-release is that it is timing
> dependent. You need to actually observe the problematic sequence before
> it can warn, and only the whole instance->class mapping saves us from
> actually hitting the deadlock.
Of course.
> The same would be true for using cross-release for workqueues as well,
> something like:
>
> W:
> mutex_lock(A)
>
> mutex_lock(A)
> flush_work(W)
>
> would go unreported whereas the current workqueue annotation will
> generate a splat.
Of course.
That's why I said we need to work on it. But it should be modified so
that the wq code becomes more clear instead of abusing weird acquire()s.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:53:39AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 12:49:26AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > However, how would it distinguish things like flushing another work
> > >
> > > I think it must be distinguished with what it actually waits for, e.i.
> > > completion
> > > variables instead of work or wq. I will make it next week and let you know.
> >
> > So no. The existing annotations are strictly better than relying on
> > cross-release.
>
> Thank you for exaplanation but, as I already said, this is why I said
> "I don't think it's the same level currently. But, I can make it with
> some modification." to TJ:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg1479560.html
>
> And also I mentioned we might need the current code inevitably but, the
> existing annotations are never good and why here:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg1480173.html
I can read the words, but have no idea what you're trying to say.