[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] flush_cpu_workqueue: don't flush an empty ->worklist
On 01/17, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 04:27:25PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > I meant issuing kthread_stop() in DOWN_PREPARE so that worker
> > > thread exits itself (much before CPU is actually brought down).
> >
> > Deadlock if work_struct re-queues itself.
> Are you referring to the problem you described here?
> If so, then it can easily be prevented by having run_workqueue() check for
> kthread_should_stop() in its while loop?

flush_workqueue() also calls run_workqueue().

> > > workqueue_cpu_callback()
> > > {
> > >
> > > CPU_DEAD:
> > > /* threads are still frozen at this point */
> > > take_over_work();
> >
> > No, we can't move a currently executing work. This will break flush_workxxx().
> What do you mean by "currently" executing work? worker thread executing
> some work on the cpu? That is not possible, because all threads are
> frozen at this point. There cant be any ongoing flush_workxxx() as well
> because of this, which should avoid breaking flush_workxxx() ..

work->func() sleeps/freezed. We can't move the rest of pending jobs before
it completes. This will break flush_workxxx. And no, this is not because
we use barriers now.

> 1st method, what you are suggesting:
> - Needs separate bitmap(s), cpu_populated_map and possible another
> for create_workqueue()?
> - flush_workqueue() traverses thr a separate bitmap
> cpu_populated_map (separate from the online map) while
> create_workqueue() traverses the other bitmap

Yes, we need the additional bitmap. This is optimization, we can just use
cpu_possible_map. create_workqueue() can use cpu_online_map + "int new_cpu".

Yes, this is a complication. But still this is much simpler (IMHO) than
we have now. And imho better.

> 2nd method:
> - Avoids the need for maintenance of separate bitmaps (uses
> existing cpu_online_map). All functions can safely use
> the online_map w/o any races. Personally this is why I like
> this approach.
> - Needs changes in worker_thread to exit right after it comes
> out of refrigerator.
> I havent made any changes as per 2nd method to see the resulting code
> size, so I cant comment on code sizes.

Yes, yes, yes, let's see the code first! :) Then we can compare.
Right now:
- cpu-hotplug doesn't use freezer yet
- all ideas about using it to improve workqueue.c were wrong

> Another point is that once we create code as in 1st method, which
> maintains separate bitmaps, that will easily get replicated (over time)
> to other subsystems. Is that a good thing?

Honestly, I can't understand your point. Why it will get replicated?
Because another subsystem will need cpu_populated_map too? We can remove
"static" and move cpu_populated_map to kernel/cpu.c then.

Btw, I agree it is good to have a sleeping lock to protect cpu_online_map.
But it should be separate from workqueue_mutex, and it is not needed for
create/destroy/flush funcs.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-17 17:13    [W:0.149 / U:2.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site