Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND

[David Howells]

Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It will unnecessarily stall the execution of the new work if the last
> work is still running but nothing will be broken correctness-wise.

That's fine.  Better that than risk unexpected reentrance.  You could add a
function to allow an executing work item to yield the hash entry to indicate
that the work_item that invoked it has been destroyed, but it's probably not
worth it, and it has scope for mucking things up horribly if used at the wrong
time.

I presume also that if a work_item being executed on one work queue is queued
on another work queue, then there is no non-reentrancy guarantee (which is
fine; if you don't like that, don't do it).

David
--
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/