[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070705144047.GA9548@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:40:47 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:
> Currently it is allowed that work->func() does flush_workqueue() on
> its own workqueue. So we have
>
> run_workqueue()
> work->func()
> flush_workqueue()
> run_workqueue()
>
> All but work->func() take wq->lockdep_map, I guess check_deadlock()
> won't be happy.
yep.
> OTOH. Perhaps we can can forbid such a behaviour? Andrew, do you know
> any good example of "keventd trying to flush its own queue" ?
i'd prefer to make the API a little bit stricter: such recursion is
nasty. Btw., what mechanism prevents the second instance of
run_workqueue() calling into a work->func() again?
Ingo
-
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