[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0612061506460.29000@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:25:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Andy Fleming <afleming@...escale.com>,
Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Export current_is_keventd() for libphy
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> But running flush_scheduled_work() from within dev_close() is a very
> sensible thing to do, and dev_close is called under rtnl_lock().
> davem is -> thattaway ;)
And when within dev_close() there is quite a chance there is
linkwatch_event() somewhere in the event queue already. ;-)
> Ah. The point is that the phy code doesn't want to flush _all_ pending
> callbacks. It only wants to flush its own one. And its own one doesn't
> take rtnl_lock().
>
> IOW, the phy code has no interest in running some random other subsystem's
> callback - it just wants to run its own. Hence no deadlock.
Both are true. It's linkwatch_event() that's somewhere in the queue
already that makes the trouble here.
> Maybe the lesson here is that flush_scheduled_work() is a bad function.
> It should really be flush_this_work(struct work_struct *w). That is in
> fact what approximately 100% of the flush_scheduled_work() callers actually
> want to do.
There may be cases where flush_scheduled_work() is indeed needed, but
likely outside drivers, and I agree such a specific call would be useful
and work here.
Maciej
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists