[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221122012357.GV4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:23:57 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...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 03:09:29PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?
It might well! My thought was to wait to suggest that until we found a
real-life case where this was needed, but I have no objection to being
proactive here.
But the hard part... Thought for a good name? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists