On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:39:04PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * No contention. Irq disable is only required.
> > + */
> > +static int same_context_plock(struct pend_lock *plock)
> > +{
> > + struct task_struct *curr = current;
> > + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +
> > + /* In the case of hardirq context */
> > + if (curr->hardirq_context) {
> > + if (plock->hardirq_id != per_cpu(hardirq_id, cpu) ||
> > + plock->hardirq_context != curr->hardirq_context)
> > + return 0;
> > + /* In the case of softriq context */
> > + } else if (curr->softirq_context) {
> > + if (plock->softirq_id != per_cpu(softirq_id, cpu) ||
> > + plock->softirq_context != curr->softirq_context)
> > + return 0;
> > + /* In the case of process context */
> > + } else {
> > + if (plock->hardirq_context != 0 ||
> > + plock->softirq_context != 0)
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + return 1;
> > +}
> >
>
> I have not read the code yet...
> but different work functions in workqueues are different "contexts" IMO,
> does commit operation work well in work functions?
Hello,
Yes. I also think it should be considered since each work might be run in
different context from another, thanks to concurrency support of workqueue.
I will reflect it.
Thanks,
Byungchul
--
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>