From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, LKP <lkp@lists.01.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] workqueue: Remove the warning in wq_worker_sleeping()
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 00:29:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200327232959.rpylymw2edhtxuwr@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200327175350.rw5gex6cwum3ohnu@linutronix.de>
The kernel test robot triggered a warning with the following race:
task-ctx A interrupt-ctx B
worker
-> process_one_work()
-> work_item()
-> schedule();
-> sched_submit_work()
-> wq_worker_sleeping()
-> ->sleeping = 1
atomic_dec_and_test(nr_running)
__schedule(); *interrupt*
async_page_fault()
-> local_irq_enable();
-> schedule();
-> sched_submit_work()
-> wq_worker_sleeping()
-> if (WARN_ON(->sleeping)) return
-> __schedule()
-> sched_update_worker()
-> wq_worker_running()
-> atomic_inc(nr_running);
-> ->sleeping = 0;
-> sched_update_worker()
-> wq_worker_running()
if (!->sleeping) return
In this context the warning is pointless everything is fine.
An interrupt before wq_worker_sleeping() will perform the ->sleeping
assignment (0 -> 1 > 0) twice.
An interrupt after wq_worker_sleeping() will trigger the warning and
nr_running will be decremented (by A) and incremented once (only by B, A
will skip it). This is the case until the ->sleeping is zeroed again in
wq_worker_running().
Remove the WARN statement because this condition may happen. Document
that preemption around wq_worker_sleeping() needs to be disabled to
protect ->sleeping and not just as an optimisation.
Fixes: 6d25be5782e48 ("sched/core, workqueues: Distangle worker accounting from rq lock")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200327074308.GY11705@shao2-debian
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
v1…v2: - Drop the warning instead of using cmpxchg_local().
Tglx pointed out that wq_worker_sleeping() is already invoked
with disabled preemption so the race described can not happen.
- Document that it is required to have preemption disabled within
wq_worker_sleeping() to protect ->sleeping (against the race
described in v1).
kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
kernel/workqueue.c | 6 ++++--
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 1a9983da4408d..7181ea73e5566 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4112,7 +4112,8 @@ static inline void sched_submit_work(struct task_struct *tsk)
* it wants to wake up a task to maintain concurrency.
* As this function is called inside the schedule() context,
* we disable preemption to avoid it calling schedule() again
- * in the possible wakeup of a kworker.
+ * in the possible wakeup of a kworker and because wq_worker_sleeping()
+ * requires it.
*/
if (tsk->flags & (PF_WQ_WORKER | PF_IO_WORKER)) {
preempt_disable();
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 4e01c448b4b48..39b968146f5f7 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -858,7 +858,8 @@ void wq_worker_running(struct task_struct *task)
* @task: task going to sleep
*
* This function is called from schedule() when a busy worker is
- * going to sleep.
+ * going to sleep. Preemption needs to be disabled to protect ->sleeping
+ * assignment.
*/
void wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task)
{
@@ -875,7 +876,8 @@ void wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task)
pool = worker->pool;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(worker->sleeping))
+ /* Return if preempted before wq_worker_running() was reached */
+ if (worker->sleeping)
return;
worker->sleeping = 1;
--
2.26.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-27 23:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-27 7:43 6d25be5782 ("sched/core, workqueues: Distangle worker .."): [ 52.816697] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 14 at kernel/workqueue.c:882 wq_worker_sleeping kernel test robot
2020-03-27 17:53 ` [PATCH] workqueue: Don't double assign worker->sleeping Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-03-27 23:29 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2020-04-03 14:53 ` [PATCH v2] workqueue: Remove the warning in wq_worker_sleeping() Tejun Heo
2020-04-03 19:29 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-04-03 17:45 ` Daniel Jordan
2020-04-03 18:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-04-03 19:05 ` Daniel Jordan
2020-04-01 3:22 ` [PATCH] workqueue: Don't double assign worker->sleeping Lai Jiangshan
2020-04-01 3:44 ` Lai Jiangshan
2020-04-01 13:03 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-04-02 0:07 ` Lai Jiangshan
2020-04-02 7:29 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-04-08 12:20 ` [tip: sched/urgent] workqueue: Remove the warning in wq_worker_sleeping() tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200327232959.rpylymw2edhtxuwr@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®