[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dffdbd5c-3d21-5cee-03d6-b89e0caf9a41@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:55:38 -0700
From: Chris Lew <quic_clew@...cinc.com>
To: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>, <mani@...nel.org>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<quic_viswanat@...cinc.com>, <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 net-next 2/2] net: qrtr: Add support for processing
DEL_PROC type control message
On 9/23/2023 6:49 PM, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>> */
>>> struct qrtr_node {
>>> struct mutex ep_lock;
>>> @@ -134,6 +138,9 @@ struct qrtr_node {
>>> struct sk_buff_head rx_queue;
>>> struct list_head item;
>>> + struct kthread_worker kworker;
>>> + struct task_struct *task;
>>> + struct kthread_work read_data;
>>
>> I think our own kthread here might have been overkill. I forget why we
>> needed it instead of using a workqueue.
>
> I added a workqueue here because endpoint post is getting called from
> atomic contexts and below DEL_PROC handling acquires qrtr_tx_lock.
Got it, I think deferring the processing makes sense. I was more
focusing on the fact that we are creating our own kthread instead of
using the system workqueues.
Prior to commit e04df98adf7d ("net: qrtr: Remove receive worker"), this
was a work_struct. I think we should keep it as a work_struct until we
can motivate why a qrtr_node needs it's own kthread.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists