On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:34:16 +0300 Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remove ->remove_sequence, ->insert_sequence, and ->work_done from > struct cpu_workqueue_struct. To implement flush_workqueue() we can > queue a barrier work on each CPU and wait for its completition. Seems sensible. I seem to recall considering doing it that way when I initially implemeted flush_workqueue(), but I don't recall why I didn't do this. hmm. > We don't need to worry about CPU going down while we are are sleeping > on the completition. take_over_work() will move this work on another > CPU, and the handler will wake up us eventually. > > NOTE: I removed 'int cpu' parameter, flush_workqueue() locks/unlocks > workqueue_mutex unconditionally. It may be restored, but I think it > doesn't make much sense, we take the mutex for the very short time, > and the code becomes simpler. > Taking workqueue_mutex() unconditionally in flush_workqueue() means that we'll deadlock if a single-threaded workqueue callback handler calls flush_workqueue(). It's an idiotic thing to do, but I think I spotted a site last week which does this. scsi? Not sure.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/