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/
