On 05/11, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > However, I agree, this smp_wmb() in insert_work() should die. We can
> > introduce "smp_mb__before_spinlock()" (no-op on x86 at least) to kill it.
>
> Yeah, right, we allow cwq pointer to change without holding the lock.
> Although I still think that is where we should fix the problem. Taking
> down CPU is a cold cold path. We can afford a lot of overhead there.
> IMHO, if we can do that, it would be far better than memory barrier
> dance which tends to be difficult to understand and thus prove/maintain
> correctness. I'll think about it more.
Yes I hate this barrier too. That is why changelog explicitly mentions it.
With some trivial code modifications we can move set_wq_data() from
insert_work()
to __queue_work(), then
void set_wq_data(work, cwq)
{
struct cpu_workqueue_struct *old = get_wq_data(work);
if (likely(cwq == old))
return;
if (old)
spin_lock(old->lock);
atomic_long_set(&work->data, ...);
if (old)
spin_lock(old->lock);
}
I can't say I like this very much, though. I'd prefer use
smp_mb__before_spinlock().
Probably we can do something else.
But first I'd like to kill cwq_should_stop(). (Gautham, Srivatsa, you were
right, but I was blind, deaf, and stupid).
Oleg.
-
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/
