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> <CAJNi4rNU0-GVnLMqdGFvHOsTb26eDEgjZJSE6Doo8QU6MYx+JQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJNi4rNU0-GVnLMqdGFvHOsTb26eDEgjZJSE6Doo8QU6MYx+JQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 10:37:49 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyC=-bD8L5KSYLp3_tN0WdoCYgtpwNaM_=oLb2c=Gsu+6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: work item still be scheduled to execute after destroy_workqueue?
To:     richard clark <richard.xnu.clark@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 5:20 PM richard clark
<richard.xnu.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

No, I don't think we need it. The wq is totally freed in rcu_free_wq.

Or we can just introduce __WQ_DESTROYING.

It seems using __WQ_DESTROYING is better.

>
> --- 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