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:
Tejun Heo 2013-03-13 19:47:39 -07:00
parent ebf44d16ec
commit cd549687a7
1 changed files with 12 additions and 1 deletions

View File

@ -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 */