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;
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:41:30 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Crystal Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        John Keeping <john@metanate.com>,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: rtmutex, pi_blocked_on, and blk_flush_plug()
Message-ID: <20230322164130.CmC_J49n@linutronix.de>
References: <4b4ab374d3e24e6ea8df5cadc4297619a6d945af.camel@redhat.com>
 <Y+47FVJ+hI+NA2In@linutronix.de>
 <87k00cr7ix.ffs@tglx>
 <Y/NT1/ynarp9cDlS@linutronix.de>
 <Y/NcnrwKr2u6tamQ@linutronix.de>
 <874jrgqjsw.ffs@tglx>
 <84c1de84ac129de7c7597c48d3ec19ccc0672492.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <84c1de84ac129de7c7597c48d3ec19ccc0672492.camel@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-03-04 23:39:57 [-0600], Crystal Wood wrote:
> > This still leaves the problem vs. io_wq_worker_sleeping() and it's
> > running() counterpart after schedule().
> 
> The closest thing I can see to a problem there is io_wqe_dec_running()->
> io_queue_worker_create()->io_wq_cancel_tw_create()->kfree(), but that only
> happens with func == create_worker_cont(), and io_wqe_dec_running() uses 
> create_worker_cb(). 

So we may good then. The while loop in io_wq_cancel_tw_create() worries
me a little. I am not sure if only the submitted work gets cancel or
maybe other as well, including the one leading the kfree. 

> Are there any workloads I could run to stress out that path (with my
> asserts in place)?

None that I can think of. Maybe something from the io-ring test suite.
But then you may need to bend to code to get the task_add() to fail.
Maybe Jens knows something.

> -Scott

Sebastian