On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:05:19AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 04:36:53PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > The whole workqueue.c keeps activate-order equals to queue_work()-order > > in any given cwq except workqueue_set_max_active(). > > > > If this order is not kept, something may be not good: > > > > first_work_fn() { release some resource; } > > second_work_fn() { wait and request the resource; use resource; } > > > > 1. user queues the first work. # ->max_active is low, is queued on > > ->delayed_works. > > 2. someone increases the >max_active via workqueue_set_max_active() > > 3. user queues the second work. # queued on cwq->pool. > > > > When the second work is launched to execute, it waits the first work > > to release the resource. But the first work is still in ->delayed_works, > > it waits the first work to finish and them it can be activated. > > > > It is bad. we fix it by activating the first work in the step 2. > > > > I can't fully determine that it is workqueue's responsibility > > or the user's responsibility. > > If it is workqueue's responsibility, the patch needs go to -stable. > > If it is user's responsibility. it is a nice cleanup, it can go to for-next. > > I prefer it is workqueue's responsibility. > > Unless max_active == 1, workqueue doesn't give any guarantee on > execution order. I don't think we need to care about this.
That said, I kinda like the patches. Can you please update the description on the second patch to something along the line of "use common set_max_active logic which immediately makes use of the newly increased max_mactive if there are delayed work items and also happens to keep activation ordering"? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/