[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160628170447.GE5185@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:04:47 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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 v9 06/12] kthread: Add kthread_drain_worker()
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:33:50PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> OK, so you suggest to do the following:
>
> 1. Add a flag into struct kthread_worker that will prevent
> from further queuing.
This doesn't add any protection, right? It's getting freed anyway.
> 2. kthread_create_worker()/kthread_destroy_worker() will
> not longer dynamically allocate struct kthread_worker.
> They will just start/stop the kthread.
Ah, okay, I don't think we need to change this. I was suggesting to
simplify it by dropping the draining and just do flush from destroy.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists