From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 3/3] workqueue: fix possible idle worker depletion during CPU_ONLINE
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:29:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120907192939.GF9426@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <504965AA.6090107@cn.fujitsu.com>
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:10:34AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > This patch fixes the bug by releasing manager_mutexes before letting
> > the rebound idle workers go. This ensures that by the time idle
> > workers check whether management is necessary, CPU_ONLINE already has
> > released the positions.
>
> Could you review manage_workers_slowpath() in V4 patchset.
> It has enough changelog and comments.
>
> After the discussion,
>
> We don't move the hotplug code outside hotplug code. it matches this requirement.
Was that the one which deferred calling manager function to a work
item on trylock failure?
> Since we introduce manage_mutex(), any palace should be allowed to grab it
> when its context allows. So it is not hotplug code's responsibility of this bug.
>
> manage_workers() just use mutex_trylock() to grab the lock, it does not make
> hard to do it jobs when need, and it does not try to find out the reason of fail.
> so I think it is manage_workers()'s responsibility to handle this bug.
> a manage_workers_slowpath() is enough to fix the bug.
It doesn't really matter how the synchronization between regular
manager and hotplug path is done. The point is that hotplug path, as
much as possible, should be responsible for any incurred complexities,
so I'd really like to stay away from adding a completely different
path manager can be invoked in the usual path if at all possible.
Let's try to solve this from the hotplug side.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-07 19:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-06 20:06 [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 1/3] workqueue: break out gcwq->lock locking from gcwq_claim/release_management_and_[un]lock() Tejun Heo
2012-09-06 20:07 ` [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 2/3] workqueue: rename rebind_workers() to gcwq_associate() and let it handle locking and DISASSOCIATED clearing Tejun Heo
2012-09-06 20:08 ` [PATCH wq/for-3.6-fixes 3/3] workqueue: fix possible idle worker depletion during CPU_ONLINE Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 1:53 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-07 19:25 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 3:10 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-07 19:29 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-09-07 20:22 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 20:34 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 23:05 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 23:07 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 23:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-08 17:18 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-08 17:29 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-08 17:32 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-08 17:40 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-08 17:41 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120907192939.GF9426@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).