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;
Date:   Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:29:57 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Don't double assign worker->sleeping
Message-ID: <20200402072957.fczmj5nbaosfq3hb@linutronix.de>
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>
 <CAJhGHyBmcY75Rhc7UFyK7Ozho+aqOcX2EaxePhZFu9rt0w3-mA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJhGHyBmcY75Rhc7UFyK7Ozho+aqOcX2EaxePhZFu9rt0w3-mA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-04-02 08:07:35 [+0800], Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > 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 = kthread_data(task);
> > |
> > |         if (!worker->sleeping)
> > |                 return;
> > |         if (!(worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING))
> > |                 atomic_inc(&worker->pool->nr_running);
> > *0
> > |         worker->sleeping = 0;
> > *1
> > | }
> >
> > So an interrupt
> > - before *0, the preempting caller drop early in wq_worker_sleeping(), only 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 decreasing
> is one.

But in order to look at the same worker->sleeping it has to be same
`task'. This can not happen because the `worker' assignment is
per-thread.

Sebastian