[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070104120216.GA19228@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:32:16 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 01:34:16AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> void fastcall flush_workqueue(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
> {
> - might_sleep();
> -
> + mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> if (is_single_threaded(wq)) {
> /* Always use first cpu's area. */
> - flush_cpu_workqueue(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, singlethread_cpu),
> - -1);
> + flush_cpu_workqueue(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, singlethread_cpu));
> } else {
> int cpu;
>
> - mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
Can compiler optimizations lead to cpu_online_map being cached in a register
while running this loop? AFAICS cpu_online_map is not declared to be
volatile. If it can be cached, then we have the danger of invoking
flush_cpu_workqueue() on a dead cpu (because flush_cpu_workqueue drops
workqueue_mutex, cpu hp events can change cpu_online_map while we are in
flush_cpu_workqueue).
> - flush_cpu_workqueue(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu), cpu);
> - mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
> + flush_cpu_workqueue(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu));
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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