linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: remove the argument @wakeup from worker_set

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140718223826.GD1819@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:38:26 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: remove the argument @wakeup from
 worker_set_flags()

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 06:09:59PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> worker_set_flags() doesn't necessarily wake next worker and the @wakeup
> can be removed, the caller can use the following conbination instead
> when needed:
> 
> 	worker_set_flags();
> 	if (need_more_worker(pool))
>  		wake_up_worker(pool);

Hmmm, yeah, there were more places where worker_set_flags() was used
but it does seem excessive now.

> @@ -2045,7 +2032,7 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock)
>  	 * management.  They're the scheduler's responsibility.
>  	 */
>  	if (unlikely(cpu_intensive))
> -		worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE, true);
> +		worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE);

But let's do this separately.  Please drop the previous patch and
perform need_more_worker() test explicitly after setting
CPU_INTENSIVE.

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/