[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080612165550.GA12183@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:55:50 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueues: insert_work: use "list_head *" instead of "int tail"
On 06/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> insert_work() inserts the new work_struct before or after cwq->worklist,
> depending on the "int tail" parameter. Change it to accept "list_head *"
> instead, this shrinks .text a bit and allows us to insert the barrier
> after specific work_struct.
This allows us to implement
int flush_work(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
struct list_head *head;
struct wq_barrier barr;
cwq = get_wq_data(work);
if (!cwq)
return 0;
head = NULL;
spin_lock_irq(&cwq->lock);
if (!list_empty(&work->entry)) {
smp_rmb();
/*
* ---- FAT COMMENT ----
*/
if (cwq == get_wq_data(work))
head = work->entry.next;
} else if (cwq->current_work == work) {
head = cwq->worklist.next;
}
if (head)
insert_wq_barrier(cwq, &barr, head);
spin_unlock_irq(&cwq->lock);
if (!head)
return 0;
wait_for_completion(&barr.done);
return 1;
}
suggested by Peter. It only waits for selected work_struct.
I doubt it will have a lot of users though. In most cases we need
cancel_work_sync() and nothing more.
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