On Sunday, 13 May 2007 22:50, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, 13 May 2007 22:30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc1.orig/kernel/workqueue.c
> > > > > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc1/kernel/workqueue.c
> > > > > @@ -799,9 +799,7 @@ static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_callb
> > > > >       struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
> > > > >       struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> > > > >  
> > > > > -     action &= ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN;
> > > > > -
> > > > > -     switch (action) {
> > > > > +     switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
> > > > 
> > > > Confused. How can we see, say CPU_UP_PREPARE_FROZEN, if we cleared
> > > > CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit?
> > > 
> > > So, unless I missed something stupid, this patch is not 100% right.
> > 
> > Well, it isn't, but for a different reason (see [*] below).
> 
> Yes, I missed something stupid :)
> 
> > > I think the better fix (at least for now) is
> > > 
> > >   - #define create_freezeable_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 
> > > 0, 1)
> > >   + #define create_freezeable_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 
> > > 1, 1)
> > > 
> > > Alex, do you really need a multithreaded wq?
> > > 
> > > Rafael, what do you think?
> > 
> > That would be misleading if the driver needs the threads to be frozen.
> 
> Hm? The thread will be frozen, the "patch" above changes "singlethread", not
> "freezeable".

Ah, I'm sorry.

> > [*] Getting back to the patch, it seems to me that we should do something 
> > like
> > take_over_work() before thawing the frozen thread, because there may be a 
> > queue
> > to process and the device is suspended at that point.
> 
> Yes, exactly because the driver wants this wq to be frozen.
> 
> So, could you take a second look at the "patch" above ?

Sure, if a singlethread workqueue is sufficient for Alex, I agree that this
would be preferable.

Anyway, I've added take_over_work() to the patch (appended), just in case. ;-)

Rafael


---
Prevent freezable worqueues from deadlocking with CPU hotplug during a
suspend/hibernation by thawing their worker threads before they get stopped.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
 kernel/workqueue.c |   41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.22-rc1/kernel/workqueue.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.22-rc1.orig/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ linux-2.6.22-rc1/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -791,6 +791,32 @@ void destroy_workqueue(struct workqueue_
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(destroy_workqueue);
 
+/**
+ * take_over_work - if the workqueue is freezable and CPUs are being taken down
+ * due to a hibernation/suspend, we need to take the work out of their worker
+ * threads, because they might need to use some devices to do the work and
+ * the devices are suspended at this point.
+ * @wq: target workqueue
+ * @cpu: CPU being offlined
+ */
+static void take_over_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq, unsigned int cpu)
+{
+       struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu);
+       struct list_head list;
+       struct work_struct *work;
+
+       spin_lock_irq(&cwq->lock);
+       list_replace_init(&cwq->worklist, &list);
+
+       while (!list_empty(&list)) {
+               printk("Taking work for %s\n", wq->name);
+               work = list_entry(list.next,struct work_struct,entry);
+               list_del(&work->entry);
+               __queue_work(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, smp_processor_id()), work);
+       }
+       spin_unlock_irq(&cwq->lock);
+}
+
 static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
                                                unsigned long action,
                                                void *hcpu)
@@ -799,9 +825,7 @@ static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_callb
        struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
        struct workqueue_struct *wq;
 
-       action &= ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN;
-
-       switch (action) {
+       switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
        case CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE:
                mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
                return NOTIFY_OK;
@@ -819,20 +843,31 @@ static int __devinit workqueue_cpu_callb
 
                switch (action) {
                case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
+               case CPU_UP_PREPARE_FROZEN:
                        if (!create_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu))
                                break;
                        printk(KERN_ERR "workqueue for %i failed\n", cpu);
                        return NOTIFY_BAD;
 
                case CPU_ONLINE:
+               case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
                        start_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
                        break;
 
                case CPU_UP_CANCELED:
+               case CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN:
                        start_workqueue_thread(cwq, -1);
                case CPU_DEAD:
                        cleanup_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
                        break;
+
+               case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
+                       if (wq->freezeable) {
+                               take_over_work(wq, cpu);
+                               thaw_process(cwq->thread);
+                       }
+                       cleanup_workqueue_thread(cwq, cpu);
+                       break;
                }
        }
 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to