On 06/29, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> > If I understand correctly, this is because tasklet_head.list is protected
> > by local_irq_save(), and t could be scheduled on another CPU, so we just
> > can't steal it, yes?
>
> Yes. All that code is written to avoid synchronization as much as possible.
Thanks!
>
> > If we use worqueues, we can change the semantics of tasklet_kill() so
> > that it really cancels an already scheduled tasklet.
> >
> > The question is: would it be the wrong/good change?
>
> If it does not add another usec to tasklet_schedule(), it would be good.
No, it won't slowdown tasklet_schedule(). Instead it will speedup tasklet_kill.
Steven, unless you have some objections, could you change tasklet_kill() ?
> +static inline void tasklet_kill(struct tasklet_struct *t)
> {
> - return test_bit(TASKLET_STATE_SCHED, &t->state);
> + flush_workqueue(ktaskletd_wq);
> }
Just change flush_workqueue(ktaskletd_wq) to cancel_work_sync(t-work).
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
