On Thu 2016-02-25 13:35:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:56:54PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * drain_kthread_worker - drain a kthread worker
> > + * @worker: worker to be drained
> > + *
> > + * Wait until there is no work queued for the given kthread worker.
> > + * @worker is flushed repeatedly until it becomes empty. The number
> > + * of flushing is determined by the depth of chaining and should
> > + * be relatively short. Whine if it takes too long.
> > + *
> > + * The caller is responsible for blocking all users of this kthread
> > + * worker from queuing new works. Also it is responsible for blocking
> > + * the already queued works from an infinite re-queuing!
> > + */
> > +void drain_kthread_worker(struct kthread_worker *worker)
> > +{
> > + int flush_cnt = 0;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irq(&worker->lock);
>
> Would it not make sense to set a flag here that inhibits (or warns)
> queueing new work?
>
> Otherwise this can, as you point out, last forever.
>
> And I think its a logic fail if you both want to drain it and keeping
> adding new work.
We must allow self-queuing because it might be needed to finish
the processing. We would need to detect it. Tejun suggested
to avoid this and make the code simple.
I do not have a strong opinion here. On one hand, such a check might
help with debugging. On the other hand, workqueues have happily lived
without it for years.
Thanks a lot for review,
Petr
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>