[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1250089234.4000.22.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:00:34 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add kerneldoc for flush_scheduled_work()
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 10:54 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > + * Consider using cancel_work_sync() or cancel_delayed_work_sync() instead.
> > > + * They don't do the same thing (they cancel the work instead of waiting
> > > + * for it to complete), but in most cases they will suffice.
> > > + */
> >
> > And this is wrong advice. If you've violated the entangled deadlock
> > rules, the cancel functions will deadlock on you as well if the work is
> > still pending.
>
> No they won't. They will remove the work item from the workqueue right
> away, without blocking, assuming it hasn't started yet (i.e., is still
> pending). This is a large part of their raison d'etre.
Yes, they will ... you advised the _sync function which waits if the
work is in progress and hence induces the entanglement. You can get
away with this if you don't use _sync (but then you won't know when the
queue is safely not touching any module code before removal).
James
--
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