On 8/22/19 12:13 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 08:52:23PM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote:
@@ -191,22 +184,25 @@ static struct padata_priv *padata_get_next(struct parallel_data *pd)
padata = list_entry(reorder->list.next,
struct padata_priv, list);
- list_del_init(&padata->list);
- atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);
+ /*
+ * The check fails in the unlikely event that two or more
+ * parallel jobs have hashed to the same CPU and one of the
+ * later ones finishes first.
+ */
+ if (padata->seq_nr == pd->processed) {
+ list_del_init(&padata->list);
+ atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);
Now that you've changed the test for whether there is work to be
done you also need to update the code at the end of padata_reorder
that checks whether there is work to do. Otherwise we can end up
in a busy loop that just wastes CPU cycles.
So we can, thanks for catching that.
