Re: [PATCH 2/3] cgroup: introduce cgroup_queue_deferred_work()

[Lai Jiangshan]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Sometimes we need require a lock to prevent something,
>> but this lock cannot nest in cgroup_lock. So this work
>> should be moved out of cgroup_lock's critical region.
>>
>> Using schedule_work() can move this work out of cgroup_lock's
>> critical region. But it's a overkill for move a work to
>> other process. And if we need flush_work() with cgroup_lock
>> held, schedule_work() can not work for flush_work() will
>> cause deadlock.
>>
>> Another solution is that deferring the work, and processing
>> it after cgroup_lock released. This patch introduces
>> cgroup_queue_deferred_work() for queue a cgroup_deferred_work.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Miao Xie <miaox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h
>> index e267e62..6d3e6dc 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
>> @@ -437,6 +437,19 @@ void cgroup_iter_end(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cgroup_iter *it);
>>  int cgroup_scan_tasks(struct cgroup_scanner *scan);
>>  int cgroup_attach_task(struct cgroup *, struct task_struct *);
>>  
>> +struct cgroup_deferred_work {
>> +	struct list_head list;
>> +	void (*func)(struct cgroup_deferred_work *);
>> +};
>> +
>> +#define CGROUP_DEFERRED_WORK(name, function)		\
>> +	struct cgroup_deferred_work name = {		\
>> +		.list = LIST_HEAD_INIT((name).list),	\
>> +		.func = (function),			\
>> +	};
>> +
>> +int cgroup_queue_deferred_work(struct cgroup_deferred_work *deferred_work);
>> +
>>  #else /* !CONFIG_CGROUPS */
>>  
>>  static inline int cgroup_init_early(void) { return 0; }
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
>> index c298310..75a352b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
>> @@ -540,6 +540,7 @@ void cgroup_lock(void)
>>  	mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void cgroup_flush_deferred_work_locked(void);
>>  /**
>>   * cgroup_unlock - release lock on cgroup changes
>>   *
>> @@ -547,9 +548,80 @@ void cgroup_lock(void)
>>   */
>>  void cgroup_unlock(void)
>>  {
>> +	cgroup_flush_deferred_work_locked();
>>  	mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
> 
> So in cgroup_unlock() [which is called all over the places] we first call 
> cgroup_flush_deferred_work_locked(), then drop the cgroup_mutex. Then:
> 
>>  }
>>  
>> +/* deferred_work_list is protected by cgroup_mutex */
>> +static LIST_HEAD(deferred_work_list);
>> +
>> +/* flush deferred works with cgroup_lock released */
>> +static void cgroup_flush_deferred_work_locked(void)
>> +{
>> +	static bool running_deferred_work;
>> +
>> +	if (likely(list_empty(&deferred_work_list)))
>> +		return;
> 
> we check whether there's any work done, then:
> 
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Ensure it's not recursive and also
>> +	 * ensure deferred works are run orderly.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (running_deferred_work)
>> +		return;
>> +	running_deferred_work = true;
> 
> we set a recursion flag, then:
> 
>> +
>> +	for ( ; ; ) {
> 
>  [ please change this to the standard 'for (;;)' style. ]
> 
>> +		struct cgroup_deferred_work *deferred_work;
>> +
>> +		/* dequeue the first work, and mark it dequeued */
>> +		deferred_work = list_first_entry(&deferred_work_list,
>> +				struct cgroup_deferred_work, list);
>> +		list_del_init(&deferred_work->list);
>> +
>> +		mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
> 
> we drop the cgroup_mutex and start processing deferred work, then:
> 
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * cgroup_mutex is released. The callback function can use
>> +		 * cgroup_lock()/cgroup_unlock(). This behavior is safe
>> +		 * for running_deferred_work is set to 'true'.
>> +		 */
>> +		deferred_work->func(deferred_work);
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * regain cgroup_mutex to access deferred_work_list
>> +		 * and running_deferred_work.
>> +		 */
>> +		mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
> 
> then we drop the mutex and:
> 
>> +
>> +		if (list_empty(&deferred_work_list))
>> +			break;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	running_deferred_work = false;
> 
> clear the recursion flag.
> 
> So this is already a high-complexity, high-overhead codepath for the 
> deferred work case.
> 
> Why isnt this in a workqueue? That way there's no overhead for the normal 

We can't use kevent_wq(kernel event workqueue) here.

> fastpath _at all_ - the deferred wakeup would be handled as side-effect of 
> the mutex unlock in essence. Nor would you duplicate core kernel 
> infrastructure that way.
> 
> Plus:
> 
>> +int cgroup_queue_deferred_work(struct cgroup_deferred_work *deferred_work)
>> +{
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (list_empty(&deferred_work->list)) {
>> +		list_add_tail(&deferred_work->list, &deferred_work_list);
>> +		ret = 1;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return ret;
> 
> Why is the addition of work dependent on whether it's queued up already? 
> Callers should know whether it's queued or not - and if they dont then 
> this is hiding a code structure problem elsewhere.
> 

The caller doesn't know whether it's dequeued.
see also: queue_work_on() in kernel/workqueue.c

/**
 * queue_work_on - queue work on specific cpu
......
 * Returns 0 if @work was already on a queue, non-zero otherwise.
......
 */

Lai.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/