Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 12/18, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:34:16 +0300
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > NOTE: I removed 'int cpu' parameter, flush_workqueue() locks/unlocks
> > workqueue_mutex unconditionally. It may be restored, but I think it
> > doesn't make much sense, we take the mutex for the very short time,
> > and the code becomes simpler.
> > 
> 
> Taking workqueue_mutex() unconditionally in flush_workqueue() means
> that we'll deadlock if a single-threaded workqueue callback handler calls
> flush_workqueue().

Well. But flush_workqueue() drops workqueue_mutex before going to sleep ?

	flush_workqueue(single_threaded_wq);
		...
		mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
		...
		mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
		wait_for_completition();
							handler runs,
							calls flush_workqueue(),
							workqueue_mutex is free
							
> It's an idiotic thing to do, but I think I spotted a site last week which
> does this.  scsi?  Not sure..

Ok, it is time to sleep. I'll look tomorrov and re-send if flush_cpu_workqueue()
really needs "bool workqueue_mutex_is_locked" parameter.

Oleg.

-
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/