On 10/22, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 07:48:19PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 10/18, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > + * flush_work_sync - block until a work_struct's callback has > > > > terminated > > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Hmm... > > > > > > > + * Similar to cancel_work_sync() but will only busy wait (without > > > > cancel) > > > > + * if the work is queued. > > > > > > Yes, it won't block, but will spin in busy-wait loop until all other works > > > scheduled before this work are finished. Not good. After that it really > > > blocks waiting for this work to complete. > > > > > > And I am a bit confused. We can't use flush_workqueue() because some of > > > the > > > queued work_structs may take rtnl_lock, yes? But in that case we can't use > > > the new flush_work_sync() helper as well, no? > > OK, I know I'm dumber and dumber everyday,
You are not alone. I have the same feeling about myself! > these all flushes are > rtnl lockup vulnerable wrt. other work functions, but cancel_work_sync > looks perfectly fine Yes, > Then, if by any chance I'm right, something like flush_work_sync > (or changed flush_scheduled_work, if there is no problem with such > a change of implementation) could be safely (if it's called without > locks used by flushed work only) done cancel_work_sync() way, by > running a work function after try_to_grab_pending() returns 1 If this work doesn't rearm itself - yes. (otherwise, the same ->func can run twice _at the same time_) But again, in this case wait_on_work() after try_to_grab_pending() == 1 doesn't block, so we can just do if (cancel_work_sync(w)) w->func(); Oleg. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html