[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100609180033.39d5b499@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:00:33 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
markgross@...gnar.org, mgross@...ux.intel.com,
linville@...driver.com, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pm_qos: make update_request non blocking
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:37:12 -0400
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de> wrote:
> This still isn't resilient against two successive calls to update. If
> the second one gets to schedule_work() before the work of the first one
> has finished, you'll corrupt the workqueue.
Sorry, I don't see it. Can you elaborate?
In "run_workqueue(" we do a list_del_init() which resets the
list-pointers of the workitem and only after that reset the
WORK_STRUCT_PENDING member of said structure.
schedule_work does a queue_work_on which does a test_and_set_bit on
the WORK_STRUCT_PENDING member of the work and only queues the work
via list_add_tail in insert_work afterwards.
Where is my think'o? Or was this fixed while you didn't look?
So what _can_ happen, is that we miss a new notfication while the old
notification is still in the queue. But I don't think this is a problem.
Cheers,
Flo
--
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