[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151124202855.GV17033@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:28:55 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
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>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/22] kthread: Allow to cancel kthread work
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:23:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> instead (possibly just "spin_unlock_wait()" - but the explicit loop
I see. Wasn't thinking about cache traffic. Yeah, spin_unlock_wait()
seems a lot better.
> might be worth it if you then want to check the "canceling" flag
> independently of the lock state too).
>
> In general, it's very dangerous to try to cook up your own locking
> rules. People *always* get it wrong.
It's either trylock on timer side or timer active spinning trick on
canceling side, so this seems the lesser of the two evils.
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