linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 25/25] ipc: don't use [delayed_]work

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]

Message-Id: <20121221181523.0e0998e4.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:15:23 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/25] ipc: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:57:15 -0800 Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:

> There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending
> before queueing, flushing or cancelling it.  Most uses are unnecessary
> and quite a few of them are buggy.

> -		if (!work_pending(&ipc_memory_wq))
> -			schedule_work(&ipc_memory_wq);
> +		schedule_work(&ipc_memory_wq);

Well, the new code is a ton slower than the old code if the work is
frequently pending, so some care is needed with such a conversion.

That's not an issue for the IPC callsite - memory offlining isn't
frequent.

> ...
>
> Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
> through the workqueue tree if necessary.
> 

Please merge this one yourself.

--
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/