Re: [PATCH 00/21] workqueue: cleanups and better locking for recentchanges
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Wed Mar 20 2013 - 14:30:54 EST
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:28:00AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> In this list, we can find that:
> 1) wq_mutex protects too much different kind of things.
I don't agree with this and unless you can come up with a much better
reason, won't be splitting wq_mutex further. Also, I'm not gonna
rename it to wqs_mutex.
> 2) workqueue->pwqs are protected by both wq->flush_mutex and pwq_lock,
> but in many read sites, they are protected by both wq->flush_mutex and pwq_lock,
> in some other read sites, they are protected by pwq_lock, but can be converted
> to wq->flush_mutex. it means pwq_lock and wq->flush_mutex are redundancy here.
> 3) pwq_lock is global lock, but it protects only workqueue instance fields.
A global lock protecting different instances is perfectly fine unless
it actually causes contention in some paths. It often actually is
better to have a single global lock for cold paths as it pollutes less
amount of cache, so please don't split locks for that reason.
That said, I like the fact that wq->flush_mutex can be transformed
into wq->mutex and replaces pwq_lock making it go away, so, yeah, for
that reason, I like pwq_lock removal, so yeah, let's replace pwq_lock
I applied the ones I can apply at this point. I'll rebase the NUMA
patchset on top of the applied ones. Please update the rest on top.
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/