On 04/20, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 02:21:22PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Yes. It would be better to use cancel_work_sync() instead of flush_workqueue()
> > to make this less possible (because cancel_work_sync() doesn't need to wait for
> > the whole ->worklist), but we can't.
> > > Maybe this patch could check, if I'm not dreaming...
> > Also: cancel_rearming_delayed_work() will hang if it (or cancel_delayed_work())
> > was already called.
> > I had some ideas how to make this interface reliable, but I can't see how to do
> > this without uglification of the current code.
> For some time I thought about using a flag (isn't there
> one available after NOAUTOREL?), e.g. WORK_STRUCT_CANCEL,
> as a sign:
> - for a workqueue code: that the work shouldn't be queued,
> nor executed, if possiblei, at first possible check.
Well, yes and no, afaics. (note also that NOAUTOREL has already gone).
First, this flag should be cleared after return from cancel_rearming_delayed_work().
Also, we should add a lot of nasty checks to workqueue.c
I _think_ we can re-use WORK_STRUCT_PENDING to improve this interface.
Note that if we set WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, the work can't be queued, and
dwork->timer can't be started. The only problem is that it is not so
trivial to avoid races.
I'll try to do something on Sunday.
> - for a work function: to stop execution as soon as possible,
> even without completing the usual job, at first possible check.
I doubt we need this "in general". It is easy to add some flag to the
work_struct's container and check it in work->func() when needed.
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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]