[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070221155305.GB1596@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:23:05 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
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 Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 05:30:10PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.
Argh ..I should keep referring to recent sources. I didnt see
cancel_work_sync() in my sources (2.6.20-rc4) and hence invented that
del_work()! Anyway thanx for pointing out.
This change will probably let us do CPU_DOWN_PREPARE after
freeze_processes(). However I will keep my fingers crossed on whether it
is really a good idea to send CPU_DOWN/UP_PREPARE after
freeze_processes() until we get more review/testing results.
--
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