On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:01:13AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, Lai. > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:34:33PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > > This patchset contains the following 31 patches. > > > > > > 0001-workqueue-make-sanity-checks-less-punshing-using-WAR.patch > > > > > 0002-workqueue-make-workqueue_lock-irq-safe.patch > > > > workqueue_lock protects too many things. We can introduce different locks > > for different purpose later. > > I don't know. My general attitude toward locking is the simpler the > better. None of the paths protected by workqueue_lock are hot. > There's no actual benefit in making them finer grained.
Heh, I need to make workqueues and pools protected by a mutex rather than spinlock, so I'm breaking out the locking after all. This is gonna be a separate series of patches and it seems like there are gonna be three locks - wq_mutex (pool and workqueues), pwq_lock (spinlock protecting pwqs), wq_mayday_lock (lock for the mayday list). 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/
