On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:05:27PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 07/26/2010 05:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> Hmmm... I'm not quite sure whether it's an optimization. I thought
> >> the patch was due to feeling uncomfortable about using barriers?
> >
> > Oh yes. But getting rid of barriers is what motivated me originally.
>
> Yeah, getting rid of barriers is always good. :-)
>
> > Is there a git tree with kthread_worker applied?
> > I might do this just for fun ...
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-next
>
> For the original implementaiton, please take a look at commit
> b56c0d8937e665a27d90517ee7a746d0aa05af46.
>
> * Can you please keep the outer goto repeat loop? I just don't like
> outermost for (;;).
Okay ... can we put the code in a {} scope to make it clear
where does the loop starts and ends?
> * Placing try_to_freeze() could be a bit annoying. It shouldn't be
> executed when there's a work to flush.
It currently seems to be executed when there is work to flush.
Is this wrong?
> * I think A - B <= 0 test would be more familiar. At least
> time_before/after() are implemented that way.
I am concerned that this overflows a signed integer -
which I seem to remeber that C99 disallows.
timer macros are on data path so might be worth the risk there,
but flush is slow path so better be safe?
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
