Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200327074308.GY11705@shao2-debian> <20200327175350.rw5gex6cwum3ohnu@linutronix.de>
 <CAJhGHyDmw5Fwq5mgb1h=7GBegQKP2HQnPTxcRps-0PvGbC2PWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhGHyBS9Z=x-X2Bxzbic2sfqj=STqr+K8Tgu1UfYMQDm6MtBg@mail.gmail.com> <20200401130346.e7cdsqgxppa6ohje@linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200401130346.e7cdsqgxppa6ohje@linutronix.de>
From:   Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Apr 2020 08:07:35 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyBmcY75Rhc7UFyK7Ozho+aqOcX2EaxePhZFu9rt0w3-mA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Don't double assign worker->sleeping
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@lists.01.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:03 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-01 11:44:06 [+0800], Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:22 AM Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello
> Hi Lai,
>
> =E2=80=A6
> > > 2) wq_worker_running() can be interrupted(async-page-faulted in virtu=
al machine)
> > > and nr_running would be decreased twice.
> >
> > would be *increased* twice
> >
> > I just saw the V2 patch, this issue is not listed, but need to be fixed=
 too.
>
> | void wq_worker_running(struct task_struct *task)
> | {
> |         struct worker *worker =3D kthread_data(task);
> |
> |         if (!worker->sleeping)
> |                 return;
> |         if (!(worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING))
> |                 atomic_inc(&worker->pool->nr_running);
> *0
> |         worker->sleeping =3D 0;
> *1
> | }
>
> So an interrupt
> - before *0, the preempting caller drop early in wq_worker_sleeping(), on=
ly one
>   atomic_inc()

If it is preempted on *0, the preempting caller drop early in
wq_worker_sleeping()
so there is no atomic decreasing, only one atomic_inc() in the
preempting caller.
The preempted point here, wq_worker_running(), has already just done
atomic_inc(),
the total number of atomic_inc() is two, while the number of atomic decreas=
ing
is one.

>
> - after *1, the preempting task will invoke wq_worker_sleeping() and do
>   dec() + inc().
>
> What did I miss here?
>
> Sebastian