linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 V3] workqueue: substitute POOL_FREEZING with __WQ

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:46:23 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 V3] workqueue: substitute POOL_FREEZING with
 __WQ_FREEZING

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:47:47AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Testing workqueue_freezing requires wq_pool_mutex held.
> Although almost-all pwq_adjust_max_active() are called with wq_pool_mutex held,
> except workqueue_set_max_active(). But I hope pwq_adjust_max_active()
> don't require the heavy wq_pool_mutex.

No it doesn't require wq_pool_mutex to be held.  All it requires is
that the changed state is visible on the subsequent
pwq_adjust_max_active() invocatino which is already trivially
guaranteed.

Thanks.

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