Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <9a883d72-ea7d-1936-93e6-5c2a290509d4@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:26:30 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Use private WQ for schedule_on_each_cpu() API
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     0day robot <lkp@intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkp@lists.01.org, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
References: <20220221083358.GC835@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
 <3a20c799-c18e-dd3a-3161-fee6bca1491e@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <YhUdjip4VSWe4zDO@slm.duckdns.org>
 <16a33a65-3c67-ef66-ccc8-9c4fffb0ae5a@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <YhaoDiJ8MUOhRmp6@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <YhaoDiJ8MUOhRmp6@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/02/24 6:33, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:57:27AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2022/02/23 2:29, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 07:38:09PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> Since schedule_on_each_cpu() calls schedule_work_on() and flush_work(),
>>>> we should avoid using system_wq in order to avoid unexpected locking
>>>> dependency.
>>>
>>> I don't get it. schedule_on_each_cpu() is flushing each work item and thus
>>> shouldn't need its own flushing domain. What's this change for?
>>
>> A kernel test robot tested "[PATCH v2] workqueue: Warn flush attempt using
>> system-wide workqueues" on 5.16.0-06523-g29bd199e4e73 and hit a lockdep
>> warning ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220221083358.GC835@xsang-OptiPlex-9020 ).
>>
>> Although the circular locking dependency itself needs to be handled by
>> lockless console printing support, we won't be able to apply
>> "[PATCH v2] workqueue: Warn flush attempt using system-wide workqueues"
>> if schedule_on_each_cpu() continues using system-wide workqueues.
> 
> The patch seems pretty wrong. What's problematic is system workqueue flushes
> (which flushes the entire workqueue), not work item flushes.

Why? My understanding is that

  flushing a workqueue waits for completion of all work items in that workqueue

  flushing a work item waits for for completion of that work item using
  a workqueue specified as of queue_work()

and

  if a work item in some workqueue is blocked by other work in that workqueue
  (e.g. max_active limit, work items on that workqueue and locks they need),
  it has a risk of deadlock

. Then, how can flushing a work item using system-wide workqueues be free of deadlock risk?
Isn't it just "unlikely to deadlock" rather than "impossible to deadlock"?