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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJNi4rOgYmmtOaXVqYB9sAxDmRhGhS_vVXmZbCbMjvFCQsdjCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJhGHyD+oR8SeYeObJ2DSKfudqBtBOiL14jCsST3L5OG8WjT_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJNi4rOs-=xx5qV-hQQYgSLQCz_q3JuFxJEd+wpPaao8Ej26yQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhGHyAVbCm6i7pTRDDXgdwS25d5O3uMCvKzyOcafRAdN-S7JQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJhGHyAVbCm6i7pTRDDXgdwS25d5O3uMCvKzyOcafRAdN-S7JQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   richard clark <richard.xnu.clark@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:20:17 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJNi4rNU0-GVnLMqdGFvHOsTb26eDEgjZJSE6Doo8QU6MYx+JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: work item still be scheduled to execute after destroy_workqueue?
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc:     tj@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 2:23 PM Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 12:35 PM richard clark
> <richard.xnu.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > A WARN is definitely reasonable and has its benefits. Can I try to
> > submit the patch and you're nice to review as maintainer?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard
> > >
>
> Sure, go ahead.
>
> What's in my mind is that the following code is wrapped in a new function:
>
>         mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
>         if (!wq->nr_drainers++)
>                 wq->flags |= __WQ_DRAINING;
>         mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
>
>
> and the new function replaces the open code drain_workqueue() and
> is also called in destroy_workqueue() (before calling drain_workqueue()).
>
Except that, do we need to defer the __WQ_DRAINING clean to the
rcu_call, thus we still have a close-loop of the drainer's count, like
this?

--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c

@@ -3528,6 +3526,9 @@ static void rcu_free_wq(struct rcu_head *rcu)

        else
                free_workqueue_attrs(wq->unbound_attrs);

+       if (!--wq->nr_drainers)
+               wq->flags &= ~__WQ_DRAINING;
+
        kfree(wq);

>
> __WQ_DRAINING will cause the needed WARN on illegally queuing items on
> destroyed workqueue.

I will re-test it if there are no concerns about the above fix...

>
> Thanks
> Lai