From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: extend wq_pool_mutex to also protect pwq-installation
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:20:47 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141027132047.GE4436@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1412740423-20782-3-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Hello, Lai.
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:53:32AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Athough pwq-installation without wq_pool_mutex held is not bug,
> but it is not good design, it is better to make the pwq-allocation and installation
> are in the (same) wq_pool_mutex.
WHY? Why is that not a good design and why is extending the locking a
better thing to do? Can you elaborate the reasoning here?
> And since the pwq-allocation and installation are in the same wq_pool_mutex,
> get_online_cpus() will not be needed for this reason, and it will be remove
> in later patch.
So, if this enables further cleanup, it's fine, but please just stick
to those reasons. You do this a lot. You wanna do A because of B but
the changelog often doesn't mention that at all and just goes "This is
bad so change this to be better" without any proper reasoning. If you
want to do A to achieve B later, just say so.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-27 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-08 3:53 [PATCH 0/3] workqueue: unbound workqueue management Vs hotplug Lai Jiangshan
2014-10-08 3:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] workqueue: add wq_unbound_online_cpumask Lai Jiangshan
2014-10-27 13:15 ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-08 3:53 ` [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: extend wq_pool_mutex to also protect pwq-installation Lai Jiangshan
2014-10-27 13:20 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2014-10-08 3:53 ` [PATCH 3/3] workqueue: remove get_online_cpus() from apply_workqueue_attrs() Lai Jiangshan
2014-10-27 13:41 ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-27 9:27 ` [PATCH 0/3] workqueue: unbound workqueue management Vs hotplug Lai Jiangshan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141027132047.GE4436@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®