[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20211223123140.3789-2-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 20:31:37 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] workqueue: Remove the mb() pair between wq_worker_sleeping() and insert_work()
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
In wq_worker_sleeping(), the access to worklist is protected by the
pool->lock, so the memory barrier is unneeded.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 11 -----------
1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 33f1106b4f99..29b070106f34 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -918,10 +918,6 @@ void wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task)
}
/*
- * The counterpart of the following dec_and_test, implied mb,
- * worklist not empty test sequence is in insert_work().
- * Please read comment there.
- *
* NOT_RUNNING is clear. This means that we're bound to and
* running on the local cpu w/ rq lock held and preemption
* disabled, which in turn means that none else could be
@@ -1372,13 +1368,6 @@ static void insert_work(struct pool_workqueue *pwq, struct work_struct *work,
list_add_tail(&work->entry, head);
get_pwq(pwq);
- /*
- * Ensure either wq_worker_sleeping() sees the above
- * list_add_tail() or we see zero nr_running to avoid workers lying
- * around lazily while there are works to be processed.
- */
- smp_mb();
-
if (__need_more_worker(pool))
wake_up_worker(pool);
}
--
2.19.1.6.gb485710b
Powered by blists - more mailing lists