linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7 V6] workqueue: fix idle worker depletion

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 8 Sep 2012 11:11:07 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
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 09, 2012 at 02:07:50AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> 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.

We're already releasing gcwq->lock in maybe_create_worker().  That's
the reason why @ret is set to true.  In addition, we already released
the lock to grab manager_mutex.  So, you're not adding any burden.
Please reuse the busy rebinding mechanism.

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/