On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Anish Kumar <anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >> On Feb 10, 2015, at 12:50 AM, Roshan A <roshan.len@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> hi all, >> >> My question is regarding the correct use of workqueues. I have a >> driver which queues a work item in the interrupt handler. The bottom >> half function ( the workitem -function ) does have proper locking ( >> mutex ) in place for atomicity. > > Post the code snippet and why are you using > Mutex? If you want to synchronize between > Interrupt handler and workqueue then you should > use spinlocks. To clarify : the critical section is in the workitem-function. There is no sharing between the interrupt handler and the bottom half. >> >> With this setup, since the interrupts are enabled, it's possible to >> have a scenario where, when one workitem is being executed, another >> can be queued up, which results in the workitems being executed in >> parallel, however since there is a mutex, one thread will sleep. > > And precisely the reason not to use mutex locks. >> >> is this particular scenario considered bad or discouraged ? > > Now what do you think? >> >> Thank you, >> -Roshan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kernelnewbies mailing list >> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
