workqueue: Remove the warning in wq_worker_sleeping()
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") Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200327074308.GY11705@shao2-debian
This commit is contained in:
parent
111688ca1c
commit
62849a9612
@ -4120,7 +4120,8 @@ 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();
|
||||
|
@ -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;
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user