[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151123222703.GH19072@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:27:03 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/22] kthread: Detect when a kthread work is used by
more workers
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:25:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> @@ -610,6 +625,12 @@ repeat:
> if (work) {
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> work->func(work);
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&worker->lock);
> + /* Allow to queue the work into another worker */
> + if (!kthread_work_pending(work))
> + work->worker = NULL;
> + spin_unlock_irq(&worker->lock);
Doesn't this mean that the work item can't be freed from its callback?
That pattern tends to happen regularly.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists