Re: possible deadlock in flush_workqueue (2)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in flush_workqueue (2)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:40:21 -0700
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+a50c7541a4a55cd49b02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, syzkaller-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jiangshanlai@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20181023142804.GC6850@thunk.org>
References: <000000000000bfd4270578abe88b@google.com> <0000000000009bcd4a0578e22ebd@google.com> <20181023142804.GC6850@thunk.org>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Hello,

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:28:04AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> The other, and I think better way, we could fix this is to have an
> alternate destroy_never_used_workqueue() function which skips the
> drain_workqueue().

Yeah, I'm okay with this approach.  Maybe name it
destroy_workqueue_skip_drain()?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

References:
- possible deadlock in flush_workqueue (2)
  - From: syzbot
- Re: possible deadlock in flush_workqueue (2)
  - From: syzbot
- Re: possible deadlock in flush_workqueue (2)
  - From: Theodore Y. Ts'o

Prev by Date: Re: possible deadlock in flush_workqueue (2)
Next by Date: [RFC][PATCH v2 06/10] ext4: use common file type conversion
Previous by thread: Re: possible deadlock in flush_workqueue (2)
Next by thread: Re: possible deadlock in flush_workqueue (2)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Reiser Filesystem Development] [Ceph FS] [Kernel Newbies] [Security] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Linux FS] [Yosemite National Park] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper] [Linux Media]

Powered by Linux