Re: [RFC PATCH(Experimental) 2/4] Revert changes to workqueue.c

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>]

On 02/16, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> 2.6.20-mm1 (cwq->should_stop)
> =============================
> 
> static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq, int cpu)
> {
>         struct wq_barrier barr;
>         int alive = 0;
> 
>         spin_lock_irq(&cwq->lock);
>         if (cwq->thread != NULL) {
>                 insert_wq_barrier(cwq, &barr, 1);
>                 cwq->should_stop = 1;
>                 alive = 1;
>         }
>         spin_unlock_irq(&cwq->lock);
> 
>         if (alive) {
>                 wait_for_completion(&barr.done);
> 
>                 while (unlikely(cwq->thread != NULL))
>                         cpu_relax();
>                 /*
>                  * Wait until cwq->thread unlocks cwq->lock,
>                  * it won't touch *cwq after that.
>                  */
>                 smp_rmb();
>                 spin_unlock_wait(&cwq->lock);
>         }
> }
> 
> Patch (based on kthread_should_stop)
> ====================================
> 
> static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct workqueue_struct *wq, int cpu)
> {
>         struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu);
> 
>         if (cwq->thread != NULL) {
>                 kthread_stop(cwq->thread);
>                 cwq->thread = NULL;
>         }
> }
> 
> > 		No more changes are required, cwq_should_stop() just works
> > 		because it is more flexible than kthread_should_stop().
> 
> What is more flexible abt cwq_should_stop()?

	- it doesn't use a global semaphore

	- it works with or without freezer

	- it works with or without take_over_work()

	- it doesn't require that we have no pending works when
	  cleanup_workqueue_thread() is called.

	- worker_thread() doesn't need to have 2 different conditions
	  to exit in 2 different ways.

	- it allows us to do further improvements (don't take workqueue
	  mutex for the whole cpu-hotplug event), but this needs more work
	  and probably is not valid any longer if we use freezer.

Ok. This is a matter of taste. I will not argue if you send a patch
to convert the code to use kthread_stop() again (if it is correct :),
but let it be a separate change, please.

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/