On 04/14/2014 08:58 AM, Daeseok Youn wrote:
>
> mutex_unlock() and put_pwq_unlocked() do not need to be called
> when alloc_unbound_pwq() is failed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daeseok Youn <daeseok.y...@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 0ee63af..e6e9f6a 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -4100,7 +4100,7 @@ static void wq_update_unbound_numa(struct
> workqueue_struct *wq, int cpu,
> if (!pwq) {
> pr_warning("workqueue: allocation failed while updating NUMA
> affinity of \"%s\"\n",
> wq->name);
> - goto out_unlock;
> + return;
> }
>
> /*
Nice catch!!!
The supposed correct behavior is documented in the head of
this function. We forgot to do it.
* If NUMA affinity can't be adjusted due to memory allocation failure, it
* falls back to @wq->dfl_pwq which may not be optimal but is always
* correct.
Could you use the following code instead of "goto out_unlock":
mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
if (pwq == wq->dfl_pwq)
goto out_unlock;
else
goto use_dfl_pwq;
Correct&BAD. There are two blocks of suck code in this function:
if (pwq == wq->dfl_pwq)
goto out_unlock;
else
goto use_dfl_pwq;
You can replace both these two blocks code to the following code:
goto use_dfl_pwq;
The result is the same as before except it adds some small overhead.
I don't care the small overhead in this function.
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/
