On Fri 2015-10-02 15:24:53, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 05:43:36PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > IMHO, we need both locks. The worker manipulates more works and > > need its own lock. We need work-specific lock because the work > > might be assigned to different workers and we need to be sure > > that the operations are really serialized, e.g. queuing. > > I don't think we need per-work lock. Do we have such usage in kernel > at all? If you're worried, let the first queueing record the worker > and trigger warning if someone tries to queue it anywhere else. This > doesn't need to be full-on general like workqueue. Let's make > reasonable trade-offs where possible. I actually thought about this simplification as well. But then I am in doubts about the API. It would make sense to assign the worker when the work is being initialized and avoid the duplicate information when the work is being queued: init_kthread_work(work, fn, worker); queue_work(work); Or would you prefer to keep the API similar to workqueues even when it makes less sense here? In each case, we need a way to switch the worker if the old one is destroyed and a new one is started later. We would need something like: reset_work(work, worker) or reinit_work(work, fn, worker) Thanks for feedback. Best Regards, 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>