On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:34:16 +0300
Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Remove ->remove_sequence, ->insert_sequence, and ->work_done from
> struct cpu_workqueue_struct. To implement flush_workqueue() we can
> queue a barrier work on each CPU and wait for its completition.
Seems sensible. I seem to recall considering doing it that way when I
initially implemeted flush_workqueue(), but I don't recall why I didn't do
this. hmm.
> We don't need to worry about CPU going down while we are are sleeping
> on the completition. take_over_work() will move this work on another
> CPU, and the handler will wake up us eventually.
>
> NOTE: I removed 'int cpu' parameter, flush_workqueue() locks/unlocks
> workqueue_mutex unconditionally. It may be restored, but I think it
> doesn't make much sense, we take the mutex for the very short time,
> and the code becomes simpler.
>
Taking workqueue_mutex() unconditionally in flush_workqueue() means
that we'll deadlock if a single-threaded workqueue callback handler calls
flush_workqueue().
It's an idiotic thing to do, but I think I spotted a site last week which
does this. scsi? Not sure..
-
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]
