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;
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/4] workqueue: Unbind kworkers before sending them
 to exit()
In-Reply-To: <Y77qEu1fQHMWr6F1@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20230109133316.4026472-1-vschneid@redhat.com>
 <20230109133316.4026472-5-vschneid@redhat.com>
 <Y73KeZ3g0WdukMQo@slm.duckdns.org>
 <xhsmhv8ldck2a.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <Y77qEu1fQHMWr6F1@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2023 17:18:13 +0000
Message-ID: <xhsmhpmblc7my.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 11/01/23 06:55, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:49:49PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> While we're here, for my own education I was trying to figure out in what
>> scenarios we can hit this manager-already-active condition. When sending
>> out v6 I had convinced myself it could happen during failed
>> initialization of a new unbound pool, but having another look at it now I'm
>> not so sure anymore.
>> 
>> The only scenario I can think of now is around maybe_create_worker()'s
>> release of pool->lock, as that implies another worker can drain the
>> pool->worklist and thus let pool->refcnt reach 0 while another worker is
>> being the pool manager. Am I looking at the right thing?
>
> To be frank, I'm not sure and can't remember why the code is like that off
> the top of my head. It could well be that I was just habitually thinking
> that MANAGER can be contended while in practice the scenario can never
> happen in this particular case. I'll need to look harder at it but maybe we
> can leave that to another day?
>

For sure :-)

> Thanks.
>
> -- 
> tejun