On 04/23/2014 04:46 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:47:47AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> Testing workqueue_freezing requires wq_pool_mutex held. >> Although almost-all pwq_adjust_max_active() are called with wq_pool_mutex >> held, >> except workqueue_set_max_active(). But I hope pwq_adjust_max_active() >> don't require the heavy wq_pool_mutex. > > No it doesn't require wq_pool_mutex to be held. All it requires is > that the changed state is visible on the subsequent > pwq_adjust_max_active() invocatino which is already trivially > guaranteed. >
Good! I understood! Could you respin the patch? I'm afraid I can't explain it well in the comments. For me, I always prefer locks for non-performance critical path, locks help review, I believe your comment will do so. 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/
