lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: workqueue code needing preemption disabled
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:41:23PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> But, I'm worried about the loops that are done while holding this lock.
> Just looking at is_chained_work() that does for_each_busy_worker(), how
> big can that list be? If it's bound by # of CPUs then that may be fine,
> but if it can be as big as the # of workers assigned, with no real
> limit, then its not fine, because that creates an unbound (non
> deterministic) latency.

In most paths, gcwq->lock shouldn't be held for too long but yes there
are cold paths which just do things without thinking about latency
issues. is_chained_work() can definitely take pretty long time (note
that it got reimplemented in the current devel branch and the loop is
gone).

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-18 21:01    [W:0.040 / U:0.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site