[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3whScgTs0FgrVtY@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:09:29 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 rcu 13/16] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use
call_rcu_flush()
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:04:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one
> in queue_rcu_work(), given that callers to queue_rcu_work() are
> not necessarily OK with long delays.
So, this is fine but another thing we can do is propagating the distinction
through the workqueue interface so that the the choice can be made by
workqueue users. Would that make sense?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists