[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C4712B4.9040706@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:31:00 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
dwalker@...eaurora.org, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de,
florian@...kler.org, andi@...stfloor.org, mst@...hat.com,
randy.dunlap@...cle.com, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND
Hello,
On 07/21/2010 05:25 PM, David Howells wrote:
>> Each gcwq keeps track of currently running works in a hash table and looks
>> whether the work in question is already executing before starting executing
>> it. It's a bit complex but as a work_struct may be freed once execution
>> starts, the status needs to be tracked outside.
>
> Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.
>
> I presume this survives an executing work_struct being freed, reallocated and
> requeued before the address of the work_struct is removed from the hash table?
It will unnecessarily stall the execution of the new work if the last
work is still running but nothing will be broken correctness-wise.
> I can see at least one way of doing this: marking the work_struct address in
> the hash when the address becomes pending again so that the process of hash
> removal will cause the work_struct to be requeued automatically.
If I'm correctly understanding what you're saying, the code already
does about the same thing.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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