![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 06:28:01PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > (on top of [PATCH] workqueues: insert_work: use "list_head *" instead of "int tail" > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121328944230175) > > Most of users of flush_workqueue() can be changed to use cancel_work_sync(), > but sometimes we really need to wait for the completion and cancelling is not > an option. schedule_on_each_cpu() is good example. > > Add the new helper, flush_work(work), which waits for the completion of the > specific work_struct. This all looks right and better than current flush_, but... the main problem is that probably in 90% cases cancel_ + self-running a work function (if cancelled) should be both more efficient and safer wrt locking (what you convince me to, BTW). But, since there is no visible macro/wrapper for this, people will probably mostly choose what they can see in workqueue.h, so not necessarily the best thing. Another question is if schedule_on_each_cpu() is really such a good example here: it seems these "xxx && yyy" examples could be faster, but I've lost track of this earlier thread. BTW, flush_work() probably needs a lockdep annotation similar to flush_workqueue(). Otherwise this all looks OK to me. Thanks, Jarek P. | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-06-14 11:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||