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) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
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 <mingo@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 8ad214d..c033189 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);
/*
