[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140218153056.GC30043@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:30:56 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Document exceptions to work item
non-reentrancy guarantee
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:29:34PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >It never would have occurred to me that you could safely change the
> >function for a work item that is already scheduled or running.
> >Especially given that PREPARE_WORK() is just a simple assignment (i.e.
> >no serialisation).
>
> process_one_work() has an established order that safely allows for
> resetting the work function and scheduling the work, and further
> guaranteeing that the new work function will run.
>
> Further, existing memory barriers ensure that
> 1. The new work function is visible on all cpus before testing if
> the work is already pending.
> 2. The new work function is stored as the worker's current function
> before the work is marked as not pending.
>
> If this wasn't possible, then single-threaded workqueues could
> not be used for multiple functions without flushing work.
>
> I wonder if the floppy driver is broken too.
Ugh... I'd just rather remove PREPARE_WORK altogether. It's a pretty
dumb thing to do anyway. I'll look into it.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists