Hey,
Prolly a better subject is "ensure attrs changes are properly
synchronized"
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 05:35:50PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Current modification to attrs via sysfs is not atomically.
atomic.
>
> Process A (change cpumask) | Process B (change numa affinity)
> wq_cpumask_store() |
> wq_sysfs_prep_attrs() |
^
misaligned
> | apply_workqueue_attrs()
> apply_workqueue_attrs() |
>
> It results that the Process B's operation is totally reverted
> without any notification.
Yeah, right.
> This behavior is acceptable but it is sometimes unexpected.
I don't think this is an acceptable behavior.
> Sequential model on non-performance-sensitive operations is more popular
> and preferred. So this patch moves wq_sysfs_prep_attrs() into the protection
You can just say the previous behavior is buggy.
> under wq_pool_mutex to ensure attrs-changing be sequentially.
>
> This patch is also a preparation patch for next patch which change
> the API of apply_workqueue_attrs().
...
> +static void apply_wqattrs_lock(void)
> +{
> + /*
> + * CPUs should stay stable across pwq creations and installations.
> + * Pin CPUs, determine the target cpumask for each node and create
> + * pwqs accordingly.
> + */
> + get_online_cpus();
> + mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);
> +}
> +
> +static void apply_wqattrs_unlock(void)
> +{
> + mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_mutex);
> + put_online_cpus();
> +}
Separate out refactoring and extending locking coverage?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
