[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] kthread_worker: reimplement flush_kthread_work() to allow freeing the work item being executed
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 10:12 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 04:46:54PM -0400, Andy Walls wrote:
> > Hmmm, I didn't know about the constraint about 'known to be alive' in
> > the other email I just sent.
> >
> > That might make calling flush_kthread_work() hard for a user to use, if
> > the user lets the work get freed by another thread executing the work.
> Umm... flushing a freed work item doesn't make any sense at all. The
> pointer itself loses the ability to identify anything. What if it
> gets recycled to another work item which happens to depend on the
> flusher to make forward progress? You now have a circular dependency
> through a recycled memory area. Good luck hunting that down.
> For pretty much any API, allowing dangling pointers as argument is
> insane. If you want to flush self-freeing work items, flush the
> kthread_worker. That's how it is with workqueue and how it should be
> with kthread_worker too.


Ah. My problem was that I mentally assigned the wrong rationale for why
you reworked flush_kthread_work().

Thank you for your patience and explanations.
Sorry for the noise.

For patch 2/2:

Reviewed-by: Andy Walls <>


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-24 14:01    [W:0.074 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site