[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E0B4C95.6080409@candelatech.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:02:29 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: workqueue question.
On 06/29/2011 01:43 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:56:39AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>> Is it OK to call INIT_WORK(&foo, bar)
>> if we are currently being called by the work-queue
>> using foo?
>
> Yes, but if flush_work*() races with it, flushing can finish before
> execution is complete.
It appears that the code just wants to (re)add itself to the
work queue with a different callback method:
static void rpc_final_put_task(struct rpc_task *task,
struct workqueue_struct *q)
{
if (q != NULL) {
INIT_WORK(&task->u.tk_work, rpc_async_release);
queue_work(q, &task->u.tk_work);
} else
rpc_free_task(task);
}
My debugging leads me to believe that the rpc_async_release
is (very rarely) called on a task object that has already been logically
freed.
Is there a better way to queue this up that might have less chance
of some strange race?
>
>> Also, is it valid to free the memory containing foo
>> in a workqueue callback?
>
> Yeap.
Is there a method that can be called from a workqueue callback
to verify that the item has not been re-added to the work-queue?
I tried doing a cancel, but that caused recursive locking issues.
I'd like to call this right before freeing the object and BUG_ON()
if the object is actually still on on a work-queue.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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