[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090126141605.707877bb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:16:05 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
travis@....com, mingo@...hat.com, davej@...hat.com,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:05:37 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Well it turns out that I was having a less-than-usually-senile moment:
> >
> > : implement flush_work()
>
> > Why isn't that working in this case??
>
> how would that work in this case? We defer processing into the workqueue
> exactly because we want its per-CPU properties.
It detaches the work item, moves it to head-of-queue, reinserts it then
waits on it. I think.
This might have a race+hole. If a currently-running "unrelated"
work item tries to take the lock which the flush_work() caller is holding
then there's no way in which keventd will come back to execute
the work item which we just put on the head of queue.
> We want work_on_cpu() to
> be done in the workqueue context on the CPUs that were specified, not in
> the local CPU context.
flush_work() is supposed to work in the way which you describe.
But Oleg's "we may be running on a different CPU" comment has me all
confused.
--
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