On 09/27/2012 02:07 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:20:32AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> rescuer thread must be a worker which is WORKER_NOT_RUNNING: >> If it is *not* WORKER_NOT_RUNNING, it will increase the nr_running >> and it disables the normal workers wrongly. >> >> So rescuer thread must be WORKER_NOT_RUNNING. >> >> Currently code implement it by always setting WORKER_PREP on rescuer thread, >> but this kind of implement is ugly: >> A) It reuses WORKER_PREP which is used for a different meaning. >> B) It does not told us rescuer thread is WORKER_NOT_RUNNING. >> >> So we add WORKER_RESCUER to fix these two sematic. > > Ah, right, we always have WORKER_PREP set for rescuers. So, this > doesn't actually change the behavior at all?
No, this doesn't change the behavior at all. > I'm not necessarily > against it but the commit message seems a bit misleading. > I just try my best to say" we need to add WORKER_RESCUER to told us rescuer is WORKER_NOT_RUNNING explicity, using WORKER_PREP only will hide this info" Thanks, Lai -- 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/
