[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070221143010.GC134@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:30:10 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, akpm@...l.org,
paulmck@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com,
venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH(Experimental) 2/4] Revert changes to workqueue.c
On 02/21, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:09:36PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Which caller are you referring to here? Maybe we can decide on the
> > > option after we see the users of flush_workqueue() in DOWN_PREPARE.
> >
> > mm/slab.c:cpuup_callback()
>
> The cancel_rearming_delayed_work, if used as it is in cpuup_callback,
> will require that we send DOWN_PREPARE before freeze_processes().
>
> But ..I am wondering if we can avoid doing cancel_rearming_delayed_work
> (and thus flush_workqueue) in CPU_DOWN_PREPARE of slab.c. Basically,
>
> mm/slab.c:
>
> CPU_DOWN_PREPARE: /* All processes frozen now */
> cancel_delayed_work(&per_cpu(reap_work, cpu).timer);
> del_work(&per_cpu(reap_work, cpu).work);
> break;
>
>
> At the point of CPU_DOWN_PREPARE, keventd should be frozen and hence
> del_work() is a matter of just deleting the work from cwq->worklist.
Agreed. Note that we don't need the new "del_work". It is always safe to
use cancel_work_sync() if we know that the workqueue is frozen, it won't
block. We can also do
if (!cancel_delayed_work())
cancel_work_sync();
but it is ok to do cancel_work_sync() unconditionally.
Oleg.
-
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