[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200529065903.1758-5-laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 06:59:02 +0000
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: remove useless unlock() and lock() in series
This is no point to unlock() and then lock() the same mutex
back to back.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index c0cbe0de95d0..415893cfb074 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -4383,13 +4383,11 @@ void destroy_workqueue(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
spin_unlock_irq(&pwq->pool->lock);
}
mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
- mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_mutex);
/*
* wq list is used to freeze wq, remove from list after
* flushing is complete in case freeze races us.
*/
- mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);
list_del_rcu(&wq->list);
mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_mutex);
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists