On 05/14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Hmm, I guess we could add an additional mutex that would only be taken in
> flush_workqueue() and in _cpu_down()/_cpu_up() via workqueue_cpu_callback()
> with CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE?
This will deadlock if work->func() does flush_workqueue(), because it may
run when _cpu_down() holds this lock (note that it doesn't help if we
re-introduce take_over_work()).
This is a reason why mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex) was removed from
flush_workqueue().
> It doesn't seem to be a good idea to run flush_workqueue() while CPUs are being
> taken up and down anyway.
We can freeze all tasks :) Otherwise we can't forbid them to call
flush_workqueue().
flush_workqueue() is OK. create/destroy is a problem.
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]
