Re: [PATCH 4/7 V6] workqueue: fix idle worker depletion
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Sat Sep 08 2012 - 14:11:04 EST
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 02:07:50AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> when we release gcwq->lock and then grab it, we leave a hole that things
> can be changed.
> I don't want to open a hole. if the hole has bug we have to fix it.
> if the hole has no bug, we have to add lot of comments to explain it.
> When I write this reply. I am thinking: is the hole has bug if
> I release gcwq->lock here? result: no. But I don't want to add all things
> what I have thought as comments to explain there is no bug even when we
> open a hole. don't leave reviewers too much burden.
We're already releasing gcwq->lock in maybe_create_worker(). That's
the reason why @ret is set to true. In addition, we already released
the lock to grab manager_mutex. So, you're not adding any burden.
Please reuse the busy rebinding mechanism.
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/