Prev: 2.6.34: simple IOMMU API extension to check safe interrupt remapping
Next: reiserfs locking (v2)
From: Tejun Heo on 21 Jul 2010 11:50
Hello,

On 07/21/2010 05:38 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Tejun Heo <tj(a)kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> If I'm correctly understanding what you're saying, the code already
>> does about the same thing.
>
> Cool.
>
> Btw, it seems to work for fscache. Feel free to add my Acked-by to your
> patches.

Great, I'll start working on the debugging stuff once things settle
down a bit. Thank you.

--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: David Howells on 21 Jul 2010 11:50
Tejun Heo <tj(a)kernel.org> 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(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Tejun Heo on 21 Jul 2010 12:00
Hello,

On 07/21/2010 05:45 PM, David Howells wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I agree, it's going too far and can be easily misused. Given
that there are very few users which actually do that, I think it would
be best to leave it alone.

> 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).

Right, there is no non-reentrancy guarantee.

Thanks.

--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: 2.6.34: simple IOMMU API extension to check safe interrupt remapping
Next: reiserfs locking (v2)