From: "Anirban Sinha" <ASinha@zeugmasystems.com>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: avoiding run_workqueue() recursion
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:45:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DDFD17CC94A9BD49A82147DDF7D545C501CFAC29@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> (raw)
Hi Andrew:
I had a question about one of your previous commits:
: commit 2355b70fd59cb5be7de2052a9edeee7afb7ff099
: Author: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
: Date: Thu Apr 2 16:58:24 2009 -0700
:
: workqueue: avoid recursion in run_workqueue()
http://git.kernel.org/linus/2355b70fd59cb5be7de2052a9edeee7afb7ff099
I saw a few discussions on the mailing list around this. I also did see
your "I still don't know why I merged ..." comment on this. I have the
following observations. I am new in the kernel hacking world, so please
bear with me.
(a) I do agree that flushing the work queues from within run_workqueue()
is buggy in itself.
(b) I do also agree that recursive call to run_workqueue() is bad due to
the reasons cited in the commit log (even though I had a good laugh when
I saw the "morton gets to eat his hat" stuff :)).
(c) I am a little puzzled by the change the patch made. If we let the
call sleep on completion when keventd is itself running the
flush_workqueue(), are we not introducing a deadlock? If the thread that
is itself is responsible for walking the workqueue and dispatching the
work functions goes to sleep, who will wake it up?
In my honest opinion, I think we should simply return when (cwq->thread
== current) is true. I think in that condition, it should be just a
nop.
Please let me know what you think.
cheers,
ani
reply other threads:[~2009-07-14 5:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=DDFD17CC94A9BD49A82147DDF7D545C501CFAC29@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local \
--to=asinha@zeugmasystems.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--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®