On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:05:37 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Well it turns out that I was having a less-than-usually-senile moment: > > > > : implement flush_work() > > > Why isn't that working in this case?? > > how would that work in this case? We defer processing into the workqueue > exactly because we want its per-CPU properties. It detaches the work item, moves it to head-of-queue, reinserts it then waits on it. I think. This might have a race+hole. If a currently-running "unrelated" work item tries to take the lock which the flush_work() caller is holding then there's no way in which keventd will come back to execute the work item which we just put on the head of queue. > We want work_on_cpu() to > be done in the workqueue context on the CPUs that were specified, not in > the local CPU context. flush_work() is supposed to work in the way which you describe. But Oleg's "we may be running on a different CPU" comment has me all confused. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
