Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list check (v2)

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:41:19 -0700

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37:02AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explictly
> checking in the caller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email-masked]>

We need an ack from one of the subsystem maintainers on this one.

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  kernel/workqueue.c | 10 ++--------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 601d61150b65..e882477ebf6e 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -364,11 +364,6 @@ static void workqueue_sysfs_unregister(struct workqueue_struct *wq);
>  			 !lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex),		\
>  			 "RCU or wq_pool_mutex should be held")
>  
> -#define assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex(wq)					\
> -	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&			\
> -			 !lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex),			\
> -			 "RCU or wq->mutex should be held")
> -
>  #define assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq)			\
>  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&			\
>  			 !lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) &&		\
> @@ -425,9 +420,8 @@ static void workqueue_sysfs_unregister(struct workqueue_struct *wq);
>   * ignored.
>   */
>  #define for_each_pwq(pwq, wq)						\
> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node)		\
> -		if (({ assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex(wq); false; })) { }	\
> -		else
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu((pwq), &(wq)->pwqs, pwqs_node,		\
> +				 lock_is_held(&(wq->mutex).dep_map))
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_WORK
>  
> -- 
> 2.22.0.510.g264f2c817a-goog
>