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:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:53:26 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
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>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, LKP <lkp@lists.01.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] workqueue: Remove the warning in wq_worker_sleeping()
Message-ID: <20200403145326.GA162390@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20200327074308.GY11705@shao2-debian>
 <20200327175350.rw5gex6cwum3ohnu@linutronix.de>
 <20200327232959.rpylymw2edhtxuwr@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200327232959.rpylymw2edhtxuwr@linutronix.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 12:29:59AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The kernel test robot triggered a warning with the following race:
>    task-ctx A                            interrupt-ctx B
>  worker
>   -> process_one_work()
>     -> work_item()
>       -> schedule();
>          -> sched_submit_work()
>            -> wq_worker_sleeping()
>              -> ->sleeping = 1
>                atomic_dec_and_test(nr_running)
>          __schedule();                *interrupt*
>                                        async_page_fault()
>                                        -> local_irq_enable();
>                                        -> schedule();
>                                           -> sched_submit_work()
>                                             -> wq_worker_sleeping()
>                                                -> if (WARN_ON(->sleeping)) return
>                                           -> __schedule()
>                                             ->  sched_update_worker()
>                                               -> wq_worker_running()
>                                                  -> atomic_inc(nr_running);
>                                                  -> ->sleeping = 0;
> 
>       ->  sched_update_worker()
>         -> wq_worker_running()
>           if (!->sleeping) return
> 
> In this context the warning is pointless everything is fine.

This is not a usual control flow, right? Can we annotate this case specifically
instead of weakening santiy check for generic cases?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun