Thanks Arun for the link. This clears up things for me. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Arun KS <getarunks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Roshan, > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:20 PM, 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. >> >> 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. >> >> is this particular scenario considered bad or discouraged ? > > This should not happen if you are using the same work item. > All workqueues are now non-reentrant - any work item is guaranteed to > be executed by at most one worker system-wide at any given time. > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/kernel/workqueue.c?id=dbf2576e37da0fcc7aacbfbb9fd5d3de7888a3c1 > > Thanks, > Arun >> >> >> 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
