[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161109172743.GB26446@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:27:44 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@...fitbricks.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chunming Zhou <David1.Zhou@....com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kthread: don't use to_live_kthread() in
kthread_park() and kthread_unpark()
On 11/09, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > - watchdog_park_threads() and it does not look nice. The code is actually
> > correct, get_online_cpus() ensures that kthread_park() can't race with
> > itself (note that kthread_park() can't handle this race correctly), but
> > imo it should not use kthread_park() directly.
>
> Should we provide an interface through the smpboot thread infrastructure for
> this?
IMHO yes, I'll write another email.
> I can see why that gpu driver wants to use the park mechanism and I guess
> there are other legitimate use cases as well. I prefer to implement a
> park/unpark variant which is safe to use on arbitrary kthreads
Yes, agreed. Again, I'll write another email. Perhaps we should even keep
park/unpark exported and change them to avoid the races with exit/itself,
I dunno.
My real point was, imo the KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU/__kthread_bind(kthread->cpu)
logic in kthread_unpark() should be private to smpboot.c/cpu.c.
I'll send another patch tomorrow. kthread_create_worker_on_cpu() ab-uses
this logic too for no reason, but this is trivial.
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Thanks!
Probably I should re-send these 2 short series to Ingo with your acks applied.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists