On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:30:32AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:38:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:51:48PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:16:29PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > > > > >> It would be gone _only_ at the time the history overrun, and then it > > > >> will be built again. So, you are wrong. > > > > > > s/it will be built again/the acquisition will be added into the xhlock > > > array again/ > > > > > > Now, better to understand? > > > > No, I still don't get it. How are we ever going to get the workqueue > > thread setup code back after its spooled out? > > > > > > How will it ever be build again? You only ever spawn the worker thread > > > > _ONCE_, then it runs lots and lots of works. > > > > > > > > We _could_ go fix it, but I really don't see it being worth the time and > > > > > > We don't need to fix it spending time and effort. Just *revert* all your > > > wrong patches. > > > > And get tangled up with the workqueue annotation again, no thanks. > > Having the first few works see the thread setup isn't worth it. > > > > And your work_id annotation had the same problem. > > I keep asking you for an example because I really understand you.
I keep asking you for an example because I really want to understand you. > > Fix my problematic example with your patches, > > or, > > Show me a problematic scenario with my original code, you expect. > > Whatever, it would be helpful to understand you.