On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:08:57PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > @@ -3185,12 +3250,133 @@ static int init_worker_pool(struct worker_pool
> > *pool)
> > mutex_init(&pool->assoc_mutex);
> > ida_init(&pool->worker_ida);
> >
> > + INIT_HLIST_NODE(&pool->hash_node);
> > + atomic_set(&pool->refcnt, 1);
>
> We should document: the code before "atomic_set(&pool->refcnt, 1);" should
> not failed.
> (In case we add failable code before it when we forget this requirement in
> future".
> reason: when get_unbound_pool() fails, we expected ->refcnt = 1)
Yeap, comments added.
> > +/**
> > + * put_unbound_pool - put a worker_pool
> > + * @pool: worker_pool to put
> > + *
> > + * Put @pool. If its refcnt reaches zero, it gets destroyed in sched-RCU
> > + * safe manner.
> > + */
> > +static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
> > +{
> > + struct worker *worker;
> > +
> > + if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&pool->refcnt))
> > + return;
>
> if get_unbound_pool() happens here, it will get a destroyed pool.
> so we need to move "spin_lock_irq(&workqueue_lock);" before above statement.
> (and ->refcnt don't need atomic after moved)
Hmmm... right. Nice catch. Updating...
> > + if (WARN_ON(pool->nr_workers != pool->nr_idle))
> > + return;
>
> This can be false-negative. we should remove this WARN_ON().
How would the test fail spuriously? Can you please elaborate?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
