Hello, On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:08:57PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > @@ -1692,9 +1691,8 @@ static struct worker *alloc_worker(void) > * create_worker - create a new workqueue worker > * @pool: pool the new worker will belong to > * > - * Create a new worker which is bound to @pool. The returned worker > - * can be started by calling start_worker() or destroyed using > - * destroy_worker(). > + * Create a new worker which is bound to @pool. > + * The new worker should be started and enter idle by start_worker().
Hmm... we used to have a path where a worker is created and then destroyed without being started. IIRC, it was on the CPU online failure path. A worker was created for the CPU coming online and if the online operation failed the created worker was shut down without being started. Right, we no longer shutdown per-cpu pools on offline so this doesn't matter anymore. Might worthwhile to note in the patch description tho. > @@ -1815,6 +1812,7 @@ static int create_and_start_worker(struct worker_pool > *pool) > * @worker: worker to be destroyed > * > * Destroy @worker and adjust @pool stats accordingly. > + * The worker should be idle(WORKER_IDLE). Just write "The worker should be idle." Also, in general, can you please put a space before opening parenthesis? > * > * CONTEXT: > * spin_lock_irq(pool->lock) which is released and regrabbed. > @@ -1828,13 +1826,13 @@ static void destroy_worker(struct worker *worker) > > /* sanity check frenzy */ > if (WARN_ON(worker->current_work) || > - WARN_ON(!list_empty(&worker->scheduled))) > + WARN_ON(!list_empty(&worker->scheduled)) || > + WARN_ON(!(worker->flags & WORKER_IDLE)) || > + WARN_ON(pool->nr_workers == 1 && !list_empty(&pool->worklist))) I'm not sure about the pool condition check. It's kinda overreaching to check for it from worker destruction. > @@ -3589,6 +3587,7 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool) > mutex_lock(&pool->manager_mutex); > spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock); > > + WARN_ON(pool->nr_workers != pool->nr_idle); Does this condition detect anything new from the condition below? > while ((worker = first_worker(pool))) > destroy_worker(worker); > WARN_ON(pool->nr_workers || pool->nr_idle); 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/
