[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C471768.5090108@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:51:04 +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 05:45 PM, David Howells wrote:
> That's fine. Better that than risk unexpected reentrance. You could add a
> function to allow an executing work item to yield the hash entry to indicate
> that the work_item that invoked it has been destroyed, but it's probably not
> worth it, and it has scope for mucking things up horribly if used at the wrong
> time.
Yeah, I agree, it's going too far and can be easily misused. Given
that there are very few users which actually do that, I think it would
be best to leave it alone.
> I presume also that if a work_item being executed on one work queue is queued
> on another work queue, then there is no non-reentrancy guarantee (which is
> fine; if you don't like that, don't do it).
Right, there is no non-reentrancy guarantee.
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