[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53D8626E.5060900@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:11:42 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<hughd@...gle.com>, <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <hpa@...or.com>,
<mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: vmstat: On demand vmstat workers V8
On 07/29/2014 11:39 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, well, then it's something else. Either a bug in workqueue or in
>> the caller. Given the track record, the latter is more likely.
>> e.g. it looks kinda suspicious that the work func is cleared after
>> cancel_delayed_work_sync() is called. What happens if somebody tries
>> to schedule it inbetween?
>
> Here is yet another patch to also address this idea:
>
> Subject: vmstat: Clear the work.func before cancelling delayed work
>
> Looks strange to me but Tejun thinks this could do some good.
> If this really is the right thing to do then cancel_delayed_work should
> zap the work func itselt I think.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
>
>
> Index: linux/mm/vmstat.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/mm/vmstat.c 2014-07-29 10:22:45.073884943 -0500
> +++ linux/mm/vmstat.c 2014-07-29 10:34:45.083369228 -0500
> @@ -1277,8 +1277,8 @@ static int vmstat_cpuup_callback(struct
> break;
> case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
> case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
> - cancel_delayed_work_sync(&per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu));
> per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu).work.func = NULL;
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu));
I think we should just remove "per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu).work.func = NULL;"
> break;
> case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
> case CPU_DOWN_FAILED_FROZEN:
> .
>
--
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