lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND
Date
Tejun Heo <tj@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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-21 17:49    [W:0.052 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site