[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180319164523.GB519464@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:23 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
security@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] RCU, workqueue: Implement rcu_work
Hello, Lai.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:01:35PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > +bool flush_rcu_work(struct rcu_work *rwork)
> > +{
> > + if (test_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&rwork->work))) {
> > + rcu_barrier();
> > + flush_work(&rwork->work);
> > + return true;
>
> A possible tiny improvement: check if it was already queued on wq.
> For example:
>
> if (test_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&rwork->work))) {
> if (!flush_work(&rwork->work)) {
> rcu_barrier();
> flush_work(&rwork->work);
> }
> return true;
But this breaks the guarantee that flush_work waits for the latest
queueing instance. Please consider the following scenario.
1. rcu-work is queued
2. rcu-work starts executing
3. rcu-work is queued again
4. rcu-work is flushed
5. execution finishes
6. flush finishes
7. execution finishes
6 should happen after 7 but it didn't.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists