lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 8/8] fs/aio: Use rcu_work instead of explicit rcu and work item
Hello,

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 06:17:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Mostly I am asking because I do not really understand
> "[PATCH 6/8] RCU, workqueue: Implement rcu_work".
>
> I mean, the code looks simple and correct but why does it play with
> WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT? IOW, I do not see a "good" use-case when 2 or more
> queue_rcu_work()'s can use the same rwork and hit work_pending() == T. And
> what the caller should do if queue_rcu_work() returns false?

It's just following standard workqueue conventions. We can try to
make it more specialized but then flush_rcu_work()'s behavior would
have to different too and it gets confusing quickly. Unless there are
overriding reasons to deviate, I'd like to keep it consistent.

Thanks.

--
tejun

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-21 18:54    [W:0.084 / U:2.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site