[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080612222458.GC2472@ami.dom.local>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:24:58 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 08:55:50PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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)
> {
...
> }
>
> 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.
I guess it could've had enough users if it were done a bit sooner...
I didn't check this implementation yet, but if it's "rtnl_lock in
other works" safe then it could've been used in David Miller's fresh
patch replacing last uses of flush_scheduled_work() in net drivers'
->stop() etc (thread: "Re: 2.6.25rc7 lockdep trace") - there would
be far less doubts about possible change of functionality.
Anyway, this idea looks right to me.
Thanks,
Jarek P.
--
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