Re: workqueue code needing preemption disabled

[Tejun Heo]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:41:23PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> But, I'm worried about the loops that are done while holding this lock.
> Just looking at is_chained_work() that does for_each_busy_worker(), how
> big can that list be? If it's bound by # of CPUs then that may be fine,
> but if it can be as big as the # of workers assigned, with no real
> limit, then its not fine, because that creates an unbound (non
> deterministic) latency.

In most paths, gcwq->lock shouldn't be held for too long but yes there
are cold paths which just do things without thinking about latency
issues.  is_chained_work() can definitely take pretty long time (note
that it got reimplemented in the current devel branch and the loop is
gone).

-- 
tejun
--
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/