On 05/14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hmm, I guess we could add an additional mutex that would only be taken in > flush_workqueue() and in _cpu_down()/_cpu_up() via workqueue_cpu_callback() > with CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE?
This will deadlock if work->func() does flush_workqueue(), because it may run when _cpu_down() holds this lock (note that it doesn't help if we re-introduce take_over_work()). This is a reason why mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex) was removed from flush_workqueue(). > It doesn't seem to be a good idea to run flush_workqueue() while CPUs are > being > taken up and down anyway. We can freeze all tasks :) Otherwise we can't forbid them to call flush_workqueue(). flush_workqueue() is OK. create/destroy is a problem. 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/