[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACvQF51edrK2LhPbEk6890uxANnLQGp8E2LsTi+dZGgn24y_zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 02:07:50 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7 V6] workqueue: fix idle worker depletion
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 01:50:41AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> >> + if (worker_maybe_bind_and_lock(manager))
>> >> + worker_clr_flags(manager, WORKER_UNBOUND);
>> >> + }
>> >> +}
>> >
>> > We can reuse busy_worker_rebind_fn(), right?
>>
>> busy_worker_rebind_fn() releases the gcwq->lock. we can't release
>> the lock here.
>
> Why so? Can you please elaborate?
>
when we release gcwq->lock and then grab it, we leave a hole that things
can be changed.
I don't want to open a hole. if the hole has bug we have to fix it.
if the hole has no bug, we have to add lot of comments to explain it.
When I write this reply. I am thinking: is the hole has bug if
I release gcwq->lock here? result: no. But I don't want to add all things
what I have thought as comments to explain there is no bug even when we
open a hole. don't leave reviewers too much burden.
Thanks.
Lai.
>
> --
> 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