linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/10] workqueue: destroy worker directly in the idle timeout handler

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:	Mon, 5 May 2014 10:36:13 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] workqueue: destroy worker directly in the idle
 timeout handler

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:08:59PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Since kthread_stop() is removed from destroy_worker(),
> destroy_worker() doesn't need to sleep.
> Since "unbind the worker" is moved out from destroy_worker(),
> destroy_worker() doesn't require manager_mutex.
> 
> So destroy_worker() can be directly called in the idle timeout
> handler, it helps us remove POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS and
> maybe_destroy_worker() and simplify the manage_workers()
> 
> After POOL_MANAGE_WORKERS is removed, worker_thread() doesn't
> need to test whether it needs to manage after processed works.
> So we can remove this test branch.

Ah, so, you can take out workers directly from idle timer.  Yeah,
that's nice.  I'm not a big fan of the wait_queue usage in the
previous patch tho.  Can we use a completion instead?

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/