[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070109050104.GA29119@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:31:04 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] reimplement flush_workqueue()
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 08:18:27PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Remove ->remove_sequence, ->insert_sequence, and ->work_done from struct
> cpu_workqueue_struct. To implement flush_workqueue() we can queue a barrier
> work on each CPU and wait for its completition.
Oleg,
Because of this change, was curious to know if this is possible:
CPU0 CPU1
(Thread0)
flush_workqueue()
queue_work(W1)
flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu1)
insert_barrier(B1)
wait_on_completion();
run_workqueue()
W1.func();
flush_workqueue();
B1.func(); <- wakes Thread0
The intention of barrier B1 was to wait untill W1 was -complete-. If
W1.func()->....->something() were to call flush_workqueue on the same
workqueue, then we would be returning from the barrier prematurely.
Looks possible in theory. Don't know if it is a practical issue.
--
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