Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:37:28 +0800 | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2 V3] workqueue: substitute POOL_FREEZING with __WQ_FREEZING |
| |
On 04/23/2014 04:46 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:47:47AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> Testing workqueue_freezing requires wq_pool_mutex held. >> Although almost-all pwq_adjust_max_active() are called with wq_pool_mutex held, >> except workqueue_set_max_active(). But I hope pwq_adjust_max_active() >> don't require the heavy wq_pool_mutex. > > No it doesn't require wq_pool_mutex to be held. All it requires is > that the changed state is visible on the subsequent > pwq_adjust_max_active() invocatino which is already trivially > guaranteed. >
Good! I understood! Could you respin the patch? I'm afraid I can't explain it well in the comments.
For me, I always prefer locks for non-performance critical path, locks help review, I believe your comment will do so.
Thanks, Lai
| |