Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 4 Sep 2022 10:23:26 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Protects wq_unbound_cpumask with
 wq_pool_attach_mutex
Message-ID: <YxUJPrRGmUTQu5VS@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <Yvrb3hfZuUzSpX5e@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20220818143348.1134136-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
 <Ywlmb1ADhHnfFUI8@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CAJhGHyB69M7uSu6Ot5JQ=Uc_svRCKqXbvUvwFK1xCm=FcS9Zmw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJhGHyB69M7uSu6Ot5JQ=Uc_svRCKqXbvUvwFK1xCm=FcS9Zmw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 05:32:17PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > Is this enough? Shouldn't the lock be protecting a wider scope? If there's
> > someone reading the flag with just pool_attach_mutex, what prevents them
> > reading it right before the new value is committed and keeps using the stale
> > value?
> 
> Which "flag"? wq_unbound_cpumask?

Oh, yeah, sorry.

> This code is adding protection for wq_unbound_cpumask and makes
> unbind_workers() use a stable version of wq_unbound_cpumask during
> operation.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if pool's mask becomes stale later again
> with respect to wq_unbound_cpumask.
> 
> No code ensures the disassociated pool's mask is kept with the newest
> wq_unbound_cpumask since the 10a5a651e3af ("workqueue: Restrict kworker
> in the offline CPU pool running on housekeeping CPUs") first uses
> wq_unbound_cpumask for the disassociated pools.
> 
> What matters is that the pool's mask should the wq_unbound_cpumask
> at the time when it becomes disassociated which has no isolated CPUs.
> 
> I don't like 10a5a651e3af for it not synching the pool's mask
> with wq_unbound_cpumask. But I think it works anyway.

Hmm... I see. Can you add a comment explaining why we're grasbbing
wq_pool_attach_mutex there?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun