Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Mon Jan 26 2009 - 17:17:28 EST

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:05:37 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Well it turns out that I was having a less-than-usually-senile moment:
> >
> > : implement flush_work()
> > Why isn't that working in this case??
> how would that work in this case? We defer processing into the workqueue
> exactly because we want its per-CPU properties.

It detaches the work item, moves it to head-of-queue, reinserts it then
waits on it. I think.

This might have a race+hole. If a currently-running "unrelated"
work item tries to take the lock which the flush_work() caller is holding
then there's no way in which keventd will come back to execute
the work item which we just put on the head of queue.

> We want work_on_cpu() to
> be done in the workqueue context on the CPUs that were specified, not in
> the local CPU context.

flush_work() is supposed to work in the way which you describe.

But Oleg's "we may be running on a different CPU" comment has me all

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at