[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5110F7D6.8080203@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:15:18 +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 08/13] workqueue: add lock_pool_executing_work()
δΊ 2013/2/5 5:34, Tejun Heo ει:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:41:31AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> +static struct worker_pool *lock_pool_executing_work(struct work_struct *work,
>> + struct worker **worker)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long pool_id = offq_work_pool_id(work);
>> + struct worker_pool *pool;
>> + struct worker *exec;
>> +
>> + if (pool_id == WORK_OFFQ_POOL_NONE)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + pool = worker_pool_by_id(pool_id);
>> + if (!pool)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&pool->lock);
>> + exec = find_worker_executing_work(pool, work);
>> + if (exec) {
>> + BUG_ON(pool != exec->pool);
>> + *worker = exec;
>> + return pool;
>> + }
>> + spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
>> +
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>
> So, if a work item is queued on the same CPU and it isn't being
> executed, it will lock, look up the hash, unlock and then lock again?
> If this is something improved by later patch, please explain so.
> There gotta be a better way to do this, right?
>
The caller can't call this function if the work is on queue.
the caller should call it only when CWQ bit is not set.
it is commentted "lock the pool a given offq work is running on",
sorry, comment is too short.
--
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