workqueue: better define locking rules around worker creation / destruction
When a manager creates or destroys workers, the operations are always done with the manager_mutex held; however, initial worker creation or worker destruction during pool release don't grab the mutex. They are still correct as initial worker creation doesn't require synchronization and grabbing manager_arb provides enough exclusion for pool release path. Still, let's make everyone follow the same rules for consistency and such that lockdep annotations can be added. Update create_and_start_worker() and put_unbound_pool() to grab manager_mutex around thread creation and destruction respectively and add lockdep assertions to create_worker() and destroy_worker(). This patch doesn't introduce any visible behavior changes. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
ebf44d16ec
commit
cd549687a7
|
@ -1715,6 +1715,8 @@ static struct worker *create_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
|
|||
struct worker *worker = NULL;
|
||||
int id = -1;
|
||||
|
||||
lockdep_assert_held(&pool->manager_mutex);
|
||||
|
||||
spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
|
||||
while (ida_get_new(&pool->worker_ida, &id)) {
|
||||
spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
|
||||
|
@ -1796,12 +1798,14 @@ static void start_worker(struct worker *worker)
|
|||
* create_and_start_worker - create and start a worker for a pool
|
||||
* @pool: the target pool
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Create and start a new worker for @pool.
|
||||
* Grab the managership of @pool and create and start a new worker for it.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static int create_and_start_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct worker *worker;
|
||||
|
||||
mutex_lock(&pool->manager_mutex);
|
||||
|
||||
worker = create_worker(pool);
|
||||
if (worker) {
|
||||
spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
|
||||
|
@ -1809,6 +1813,8 @@ static int create_and_start_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
|
|||
spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_mutex);
|
||||
|
||||
return worker ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -1826,6 +1832,9 @@ static void destroy_worker(struct worker *worker)
|
|||
struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
|
||||
int id = worker->id;
|
||||
|
||||
lockdep_assert_held(&pool->manager_mutex);
|
||||
lockdep_assert_held(&pool->lock);
|
||||
|
||||
/* sanity check frenzy */
|
||||
if (WARN_ON(worker->current_work) ||
|
||||
WARN_ON(!list_empty(&worker->scheduled)))
|
||||
|
@ -3531,6 +3540,7 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
|
|||
* manager_mutex.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
mutex_lock(&pool->manager_arb);
|
||||
mutex_lock(&pool->manager_mutex);
|
||||
spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
|
||||
|
||||
while ((worker = first_worker(pool)))
|
||||
|
@ -3538,6 +3548,7 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
|
|||
WARN_ON(pool->nr_workers || pool->nr_idle);
|
||||
|
||||
spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_mutex);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_arb);
|
||||
|
||||
/* shut down the timers */
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue