On 08/21, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:28:56 +0900
> Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +void del_freeze_timeout(struct block_device *bdev)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * It's possible that the delayed work task (freeze_timeout()) calls
> > + * del_freeze_timeout(). If the delayed work task calls
> > + * cancel_delayed_work_sync((), the deadlock will occur.
> > + * So we need this check (delayed_work_pending()).
> > + */
> > + if (delayed_work_pending(&bdev->bd_freeze_timeout))
> > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&bdev->bd_freeze_timeout);
> > +}
I don't understand this patch, but the code above looks strange to me...
Let's suppose del_freeze_timeout() is called by ioctl_thaw()->thaw_bdev().
Now,
IF delayed_work_pending() == T
we can deadlock if the timer expires before
cancel_delayed_work_sync() cancels it?
in that case we are going to wait for this work,
but freeze_timeout()->thaw_bdev() will block
on ->bd_freeze_sem, no?
ELSE
we don't really flush the work, it is possible
the timer has already expired and the work
is pending. It will run later.
Perhaps this all is correct, but in that case, why can't we just do
void del_freeze_timeout(struct block_device *bdev)
{
cancel_delayed_work(&bdev->bd_freeze_timeout);
}
?
> Perhaps cancel_delayed_work_sync() shouldn't hang up if called from the
> work handler?
This is trivial,
--- kernel/workqueue.c
+++ kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -516,6 +516,9 @@ static void wait_on_cpu_work(struct cpu_
struct wq_barrier barr;
int running = 0;
+ if (cwq->thread == current)
+ return;
+
spin_lock_irq(&cwq->lock);
if (unlikely(cwq->current_work == work)) {
insert_wq_barrier(cwq, &barr, cwq->worklist.next);
but do we really need this?
We have a similar hack in flush_cpu_workqueue(), and we are going
to kill it once we fix the callers.
I dunno.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
