[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1561978947.10014.12.camel@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 13:02:27 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] deadlock with flush_work() in UAS
Am Mittwoch, den 26.06.2019, 10:38 -0400 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > Am Montag, den 24.06.2019, 10:22 -0400 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > But that pattern makes no sense; a driver would never use it. The
> > > driver would just do the reset itself.
> >
> > Correct. But UAS and storage themselves still need to use
> > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for their workqueues, don't they?
>
> Perhaps so for uas. usb-storage uses a work queue only for scanning
> targets, which doesn't interfere with the block I/O pathway.
Are you sure? What about hub_tt_work? As far as I can tell, hub_quiesce
will flush it, hence it is used in error handling.
Regards
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists