Hi Saravana,
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:31:13 -0800
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > +void device_link_wait_removal(void)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * devlink removal jobs are queued in the dedicated work queue.
> > + * To be sure that all removal jobs are terminated, ensure that any
> > + * scheduled work has run to completion.
> > + */
> > + drain_workqueue(fw_devlink_wq);
>
> Is there a reason this needs to be drain_workqueu() instead of
> flush_workqueue(). Drain is a stronger guarantee than we need in this
> case. All we are trying to make sure is that all the device link
> remove work queued so far have completed.
I used drain_workqueue() because drain_workqueue() allows for jobs already
present in a workqueue to re-queue a job and drain_workqueue() will wait
also for this new job completion.
I think flush_workqueue() doesn't wait for this chain queueing.
In our case, my understanding was that device_link_release_fn() calls
put_device() for the consumer and the supplier.
If refcounts reaches zero, devlink_dev_release() can be called again
and re-queue a job.
In device_link_wait_removal(), I don't want to break this kind of
recursive removal.
Maybe I missed something.
Should I still change to flush_workqueue() ?
Best regards,
Hervé
