On 04/17/2014 12:50 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:21:21AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> OK. It is better to use get_pwq(). I will also change the above comments to:
>>
>> The base ref and the possible ref from rerscuer(stopped) are never
>> dropped on
Hello, Lai.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:21:21AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> OK. It is better to use get_pwq(). I will also change the above comments to:
>
> The base ref and the possible ref from rerscuer(stopped) are never
> dropped on per-cpu pwqs.
> Directly free the pwqs and wq.
Hmmm,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:25:16AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> 1) Our aim is to protect unbound pwq, not percpu pwq which can't be be
>> protected by get_pwq().
>> 2) get_pwq() will make reviewers confused/surprised,
Hello, Lai.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:25:16AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> 1) Our aim is to protect unbound pwq, not percpu pwq which can't be be
> protected by get_pwq().
> 2) get_pwq() will make reviewers confused/surprised, destroy_workqueue() may
> destroy percpu pwqs
>with ref > 1.
Hello, Lai.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:25:16AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
1) Our aim is to protect unbound pwq, not percpu pwq which can't be be
protected by get_pwq().
2) get_pwq() will make reviewers confused/surprised, destroy_workqueue() may
destroy percpu pwqs
with ref 1. At
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hello, Lai.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:25:16AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
1) Our aim is to protect unbound pwq, not percpu pwq which can't be be
protected by get_pwq().
2) get_pwq() will make reviewers confused/surprised,
Hello, Lai.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:21:21AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
OK. It is better to use get_pwq(). I will also change the above comments to:
The base ref and the possible ref from rerscuer(stopped) are never
dropped on per-cpu pwqs.
Directly free the pwqs and wq.
Hmmm, why
On 04/17/2014 12:50 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Lai.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:21:21AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
OK. It is better to use get_pwq(). I will also change the above comments to:
The base ref and the possible ref from rerscuer(stopped) are never
dropped on per-cpu pwqs.
On 04/16/2014 12:47 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:07:58PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> +static inline void get_unbound_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
>> +{
>> +if (pwq->wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)
>> +get_pwq(pwq);
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * put_pwq - put a
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:07:58PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> +static inline void get_unbound_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
> +{
> + if (pwq->wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)
> + get_pwq(pwq);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * put_pwq - put a pool_workqueue reference
> * @pwq: pool_workqueue to
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:07:58PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
+static inline void get_unbound_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
+{
+ if (pwq-wq-flags WQ_UNBOUND)
+ get_pwq(pwq);
+}
+
/**
* put_pwq - put a pool_workqueue reference
* @pwq: pool_workqueue to put
@@
On 04/16/2014 12:47 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:07:58PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
+static inline void get_unbound_pwq(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
+{
+if (pwq-wq-flags WQ_UNBOUND)
+get_pwq(pwq);
+}
+
/**
* put_pwq - put a pool_workqueue reference
On 04/01/2014 04:06 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:40:47PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Ping
>
> Lai, I'll keep the mail tagged but can you pleaes ping me once -rc1
> drops? While it is an actual bug, given that it'd be pretty difficult
> to trigger, I don't think it's too
On 04/01/2014 04:06 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:40:47PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Ping
Lai, I'll keep the mail tagged but can you pleaes ping me once -rc1
drops? While it is an actual bug, given that it'd be pretty difficult
to trigger, I don't think it's too urgent.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:40:47PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Ping
Lai, I'll keep the mail tagged but can you pleaes ping me once -rc1
drops? While it is an actual bug, given that it'd be pretty difficult
to trigger, I don't think it's too urgent.
Thanks!
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from
Ping
On 03/28/2014 08:07 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>From 11af0cd0306309f0deaf3326cc26d3e7e517e3d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lai Jiangshan
> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:20:12 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: fix possible race condition when rescuer VS
> pwq-release
>
> There is a race
Ping
On 03/28/2014 08:07 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
From 11af0cd0306309f0deaf3326cc26d3e7e517e3d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:20:12 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: fix possible race condition when rescuer VS
pwq-release
There
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:40:47PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Ping
Lai, I'll keep the mail tagged but can you pleaes ping me once -rc1
drops? While it is an actual bug, given that it'd be pretty difficult
to trigger, I don't think it's too urgent.
Thanks!
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from
>From 11af0cd0306309f0deaf3326cc26d3e7e517e3d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:20:12 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: fix possible race condition when rescuer VS
pwq-release
There is a race condition between rescuer_thread() and
From 11af0cd0306309f0deaf3326cc26d3e7e517e3d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:20:12 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: fix possible race condition when rescuer VS
pwq-release
There is a race condition between rescuer_thread() and
20 matches
Mail list logo
