On Saturday 19 February 2005 04:57 am, you wrote: > Vicente> I've been playing with workqueues, and I've found that > Vicente> once I unload the module, if I don't call > Vicente> destroy_workqueue(); then the workqueue I've created > Vicente> stays in the process list, [my_wq], I don't know if > Vicente> that's meant to be, or is it a bug, cause I believe there > Vicente> can be two options in here: > > Vicente> 1) It's meant to be so you can unload your module and let > Vicente> the works run some time after you're already gone, that > Vicente> allows you to probe other modules or do whatever necesary > Vicente> without the need to wait for the workqueue to be emtpy. > > Vicente> 2) It's a bug, cause the module allows to be unloaded, > Vicente> destroying the structs but not removing the workqueue > Vicente> from the process context. > > Not destroying its workqueue is a bug in the module just like any > other resource leak. It's analogous to a module allocating some > memory with kmalloc() and not calling kfree() when it's unloaded. If > a module creates a workqueue, then it should call destroy_workqueue() > when it's unloaded. What if I need the module to be unloaded cause It's mutually exclusive with another module to be loaded, and I still need to run the works in a workqueue time before that happens? That's completely out of the picture?cause that might be useful. > > By the way, the module (or any code calling destroy_workqueue()) must > make sure that it has race conditions that might result in work being > submitted to the queue while it is being destroyed. yes, I think flushing is enough, is it?
> > -R . Vicente. - 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/
