[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141120165530.GB7495@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:55:30 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jeff Epler <jepler@...ythonic.net>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] virtio_balloon: Convert "vballoon" kthread into a
workqueue
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:49:33AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 06:47:11PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > There's cancel_work_sync() to stop the self-requeueing ones.
> >
> > What happens if queue_work runs while cancel_work_sync is in progress?
> > Does it fail to queue?
>
> cancel_work_sync() is guaranteed to take self-requeueing work items no
> matter when it's called or what's going on. External (non-self)
> queueings of course should be stopped in other ways.
Excellent, thanks a lot.
> > > > From that POV a dedicated WQ kept it simple.
> > >
> > > A dedicated wq doesn't do anything for that. You can't shut down a
> > > workqueue with a pending work item on it. destroy_workqueue() will
> > > try to drain the target wq, warn if it doesn't finish in certain
> > > number of iterations and just keep trying indefinitely.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > Right, so eventually we'll stop requeueuing and it will succeed?
>
> Yeah, sure, it's a silly reason to use a separate workqueue tho.
> Don't do it that way.
>
> Thanks.
Since there's cancel_work_sync I agree.
> --
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists