Hello, On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:54:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > + * 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! > > This, I really dislike that. And it makes the kthread_destroy_worker() > from the next patch unnecessarily fragile. > > Why not add a kthread_worker::blocked flag somewhere and refuse/WARN > kthread_queue_work() when that is set. It's the same logic from workqueue counterpart. For workqueue, nothing can make it less fragile as the workqueue struct itself is freed on destruction. If its users fail to stop issuing work items, it'll lead to use-after-free. IIRC, the draining of self-requeueing work items is a specific requirement from some edge use case which used workqueue to implement multi-step state machine. Given how rare that is and the extra complexity of identifying self-requeueing cases, let's forget about draining and on destruction clear the worker pointer to block further queueing and then flush whatever is in flight. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>