From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754533AbaCSTrn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:47:43 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:44259 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754419AbaCSTrl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:47:41 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:47:29 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
        Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>, Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        uobergfe@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cifs: Fix possible deadlock with cifs and work queues
Message-ID: <20140319194729.GB11257@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20140319151252.16ed3ac6@gandalf.local.home>
 <20140319193407.GA11257@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20140319154339.44c327e3@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140319154339.44c327e3@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:43:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:34:07 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:12:52PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > My question to Tejun is, if we create another workqueue, to add the
> > > rdata->work to, would that prevent the above problem? Or what other
> > > fixes can we do?
> > 
> > The way I understand workqueues is that we cannot guarantee concurrency
> > like this. It tries, but there's no guarantee.
> > 
> > WQ_MAX_ACTIVE seems to be a hard upper limit of concurrent workers. So
> > given 511 other blocked works, the described problem will always happen.
> > 
> > Creating another workqueue doesn't actually create more threads.
> 
> But I noticed this:
> 
>  Before patch:
> 
> # ps aux |grep cifs
> root      3119  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S<   14:17   0:00 [cifsiod]
> 
>  After patch:
> 
> # ps aux |grep cifs
> root      1109  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S<   15:11   0:00 [cifsiod]
> root      1111  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S<   15:11   0:00 [cifsiord]
> 
> It looks to me that it does create new threads.

Ah, I think that's because of the MEM_RECLAIM, not sure if that will
normally participate in running works. Its been a long time since I
looked at any of that.

Lets wait for TJ to wake up.