Yes, only killing threads from the caller is much better, that's how
the kthread API is supposed to be used anyway.
> static void bdi_queue_work(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> struct wb_writeback_work *work)
> {
> + bool wakeup_default = false;
> +
> trace_writeback_queue(bdi, work);
>
> spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> list_add_tail(&work->list, &bdi->work_list);
> - spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> -
> /*
> * If the default thread isn't there, make sure we add it. When
> * it gets created and wakes up, we'll run this work.
> */
> - if (unlikely(!bdi->wb.task)) {
> + if (unlikely(!bdi->wb.task))
> + wakeup_default = true;
> + else
> + wake_up_process(bdi->wb.task);
> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> +
> + if (wakeup_default) {
> trace_writeback_nothread(bdi, work);
> wake_up_process(default_backing_dev_info.wb.task);
Why not simply do the defaul thread wakeup under wb_lock, too?
It keeps the code a lot simpler, and this is not a typical path anyway.
> if (dirty_writeback_interval) {
> + unsigned long wait_jiffies;
> +
> wait_jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10);
> schedule_timeout(wait_jiffies);
No real need for a local variable here.
> @@ -364,7 +395,7 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
> if (!list_empty(&me->bdi->work_list))
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>
> - if (!fork) {
> + if (!fork && !kill) {
I think the code here would be a lot cleaner if you implement the
suggestion I have for the forking restructuring.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
