From e6f3faa734a00c606b7b06c6b9f15e5627d3245b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 13:23:30 +0200 Subject: locking/lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation The new completion/crossrelease annotations interact unfavourable with the extant flush_work()/flush_workqueue() annotations. The problem is that when a single work class does: wait_for_completion(&C) and complete(&C) in different executions, we'll build dependencies like: lock_map_acquire(W) complete_acquire(C) and lock_map_acquire(W) complete_release(C) which results in the dependency chain: W->C->W, which lockdep thinks spells deadlock, even though there is no deadlock potential since works are ran concurrently. One possibility would be to change the work 'lock' to recursive-read, but that would mean hitting a lockdep limitation on recursive locks. Also, unconditinoally switching to recursive-read here would fail to detect the actual deadlock on single-threaded workqueues, which do have a problem with this. For now, forcefully disregard these locks for crossrelease. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Tejun Heo Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: byungchul.park@lge.com Cc: david@fromorbit.com Cc: johannes@sipsolutions.net Cc: oleg@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/workqueue.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel/workqueue.c') diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index 8ad214dc15a9..c0331891dec1 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -2093,7 +2093,28 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock) lock_map_acquire(&pwq->wq->lockdep_map); lock_map_acquire(&lockdep_map); - crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC); + /* + * Strictly speaking we should do start(PROC) without holding any + * locks, that is, before these two lock_map_acquire()'s. + * + * However, that would result in: + * + * A(W1) + * WFC(C) + * A(W1) + * C(C) + * + * Which would create W1->C->W1 dependencies, even though there is no + * actual deadlock possible. There are two solutions, using a + * read-recursive acquire on the work(queue) 'locks', but this will then + * hit the lockdep limitation on recursive locks, or simly discard + * these locks. + * + * AFAICT there is no possible deadlock scenario between the + * flush_work() and complete() primitives (except for single-threaded + * workqueues), so hiding them isn't a problem. + */ + crossrelease_hist_start(XHLOCK_PROC, true); trace_workqueue_execute_start(work); worker->current_func(work); /* -- cgit v1.2.3