[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANGgnMYhpEHWzfZd6WytoU_a3WVM9GqP15i+TNtLov=JrHAKEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 21:55:42 -0700
From: Austin Schuh <austin@...oton-tech.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Austin Schuh wrote:
>> I think I might have an answer for my own question, but I would
>> appreciate someone else to double check. If list_empty erroneously
>> returns that there is work to do when there isn't work to do, we wake
>> up an extra worker which then goes back to sleep. Not a big loss. If
>> list_empty erroneously returns that there isn't work to do when there
>> is, this should only be because someone is modifying the work list.
>> When they finish, as far as I can tell, all callers then check to see
>> if a worker needs to be started up, and start one.
>
> Precisely.
A comment there when you put together a polished patch for inclusion
would be awesome. I'm assuming that you will put the patch together?
--
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