[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50400E86.8090500@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:08:22 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9 V3] workqueue: add non_manager_role_manager_mutex_unlock()
On 08/30/2012 05:17 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 05:16:01PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> gcwq_unbind_fn() is unsafe even it is called from a work item.
>> so we need non_manager_role_manager_mutex_unlock().
>>
>> If rebind_workers() is called from a work item, it is safe when there is
>> no CPU_INTENSIVE items. but we can't disable CPU_INTENSIVE items,
>> so it is still unsafe, we need non_manager_role_manager_mutex_unlock() too.
>
> Can you please elaborate? Why is it not safe if there are
> CPU_INTENSIVE items?
>
> Thanks.
>
Imaging there only two workers, they all have UNBOUND bit because the rebind_workers()
has not been called. The First one is processing work items, the second one is idle,
when the first one encounter the work item of rebind_workers() and handle it, at the same
the second one try to create workers and failed and go to process work items too.
but unlikely the second one encounters a CPU_INTENSIVE items, the nr_running is still
<=1 after the first one finish rebind_workers().
nr_running.
first one: process work item endless +0 or +1
second one: process the CPU_INTENSIVE item endless +0
No one can service for manager role.
Thanks.
Lai
--
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