[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140403144826.GE23338@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:48:28 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] workqueues: Account unbound workqueue in a seperate
list
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 08:57:51AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > The workqueues are all listed in a global list protected by a big mutex.
> > And this big mutex is used in apply_workqueue_attrs() as well.
> >
> > Now as we plan to implement a directory to control the cpumask of
> > all non-ABI unbound workqueues, we want to be able to iterate over all
> > unbound workqueues and call apply_workqueue_attrs() for each of
> > them with the new cpumask.
> >
> > But the risk for a deadlock is on the way: we need to iterate the list
> > of workqueues under wq_pool_mutex. But then apply_workqueue_attrs()
> > itself calls wq_pool_mutex.
>
> Wouldn't the right thing to do would be factoring out
> apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()? It's cleaner to block out addition of
> new workqueues while the masks are being updated anyway.
I'm not quite sure I get what you suggest. Do you mean have apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()
calling apply_workqueue_attrs() under the lock on this patch?
Thanks.
--
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