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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 01/26, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Andrew's suggestion does make sense though: for any not-in-progress
> > worklet we can dequeue that worklet and execute it in the flushing
> > context. [ And if that worklet cannot be dequeued because it's being
> > processed then that's fine and we can wait on that single worklet, without
> > waiting on any other 'unrelated' worklets. ]
> 
> Yes sure. This is easy, and I am not sure we need the special handler.
> If the caller wants this behaviour, it can do:
> 
> 	if (cancel_work_sync(work))
> 		work->func(work);
> 
> But flush_work() was specially introduced for the case when we can't
> do the above,

it would be better to have this implicit in some wait_for_work() facility 
(which flush_work() really is) - because it is not intuitive to code a 
serialization as a 'cancel + execute open-coded' sequence.

> > That does not help work_on_cpu() though: that facility really uses the 
> > fact that workqueues are implemented via per CPU threads - hence we 
> > cannot remove the worklet from the queue and execute it in the 
> > flushing context.
> 
> Yes.

it's arguably a (mild, albeit elegant) abuse of workqueue internals 
though.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/