Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:43:19 +0300 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue() |
| |
On 12/18, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:34:16 +0300 > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote: > > > NOTE: I removed 'int cpu' parameter, flush_workqueue() locks/unlocks > > workqueue_mutex unconditionally. It may be restored, but I think it > > doesn't make much sense, we take the mutex for the very short time, > > and the code becomes simpler. > > > > Taking workqueue_mutex() unconditionally in flush_workqueue() means > that we'll deadlock if a single-threaded workqueue callback handler calls > flush_workqueue().
Well. But flush_workqueue() drops workqueue_mutex before going to sleep ?
flush_workqueue(single_threaded_wq); ... mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex); ... mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex); wait_for_completition(); handler runs, calls flush_workqueue(), workqueue_mutex is free
> It's an idiotic thing to do, but I think I spotted a site last week which > does this. scsi? Not sure..
Ok, it is time to sleep. I'll look tomorrov and re-send if flush_cpu_workqueue() really needs "bool workqueue_mutex_is_locked" parameter.
Oleg.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |