Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-11677-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:06:48 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com,
	kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] workqueue: Move nr_active handling into helpers
Message-ID: <ZYsyWIVDoSFj9_ii@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20231220072529.1036099-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20231220072529.1036099-5-tj@kernel.org>
 <CAJhGHyC4Qj7t=Emd65556r_g0fUbf9LWEA-1OKuwaDFTz8O50g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJhGHyC4Qj7t=Emd65556r_g0fUbf9LWEA-1OKuwaDFTz8O50g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 05:12:55PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 3:25 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > +static bool pwq_tryinc_nr_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
> >  {
> > -       struct work_struct *work = list_first_entry(&pwq->inactive_works,
> > -                                                   struct work_struct, entry);
> > +       struct workqueue_struct *wq = pwq->wq;
> > +       struct worker_pool *pool = pwq->pool;
> > +       bool obtained;
> >
> > -       pwq_activate_work(pwq, work);
> > +       lockdep_assert_held(&pool->lock);
> > +
> > +       obtained = pwq->nr_active < wq->max_active;
> 
> It is better to use READ_ONCE(wq->max_active) here in case
> the compiler issues code to calculate "obtained" multi-time.
> 
> Theoretically, READ_ONCE(wq->max_active) is recommended
> from the patch1 in pwq_dec_nr_in_flight() and __queue_work()
> since there is no wq->mutex for them.

Yeah, good point. Lemme add WRITE/READ_ONCE() around max_active accesses.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun