Re: cmpxchg() in kernel/workqueue.c breaks things

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:03:49 +0000
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > David, you have to fix the locking scheme used in kernel/workqueue.c,
> > you absolutely cannot assume that cmpxchg() is available on all
> > platforms.  This breaks the build on the platforms that don't
> > have such an instruction, and no it cannot emulated.
> 
> Yeah, I've figured that one out.  Also, having considered things last night, I
> think the use of cmpxchg() is unnecessary.
> 
> I was trying to handle against two possibilities:
> 
>  (1) The pending flag may have been unset or may be cleared.  However, given
>      where it's called, the pending flag is _always_ set.  I don't think it
>      can be unset whilst we're in set_wq_data().
> 
>      Once the work is enqueued to be actually run, the only way off the queue
>      is for it to be actually run.
> 
>      If it's a delayed work item, then the bit can't be cleared by the timer
>      because we haven't started the timer yet.  Also, the pending bit can't be
>      cleared by cancelling the delayed work _until_ the work item has had its
>      timer started.
> 
>  (2) The workqueue pointer might change.  This can only happen in two cases:
> 
>      (a) The work item has just been queued to actually run, and so we're
>          protected by the appropriate workqueue spinlock.
> 
>      (b) A delayed work item is being queued, and so the timer hasn't been
>      	 started yet, and so no one else knows about the work item or can
>      	 access it (the pending bit protects us).
> 
>      Besides, set_wq_data() _sets_ the workqueue pointer unconditionally, so
>      it can be assigned instead.
> 
> So, I think replacing the set_wq_data() with a straight assignment would be
> okay in most cases.  The problem is where we end up tangling with
> test_and_set_bit() emulated using spinlocks, and even then it's not a problem
> _provided_ test_and_set_bit() doesn't attempt to modify the word if the bit
> was set.
> 

I don't see why the 2.6.19 logic needed changing.

a) Nobody should be freeing the work_struct itself without running
   flush_scheduled_work() and

b) even if the work_struct _did_ get freed, the callback function won't
   care, because there's nothing in that work_struct which it's interested
   in.