On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:01:13AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hey, Lai. >> >> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:34:33PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> > > This patchset contains the following 31 patches. >> > > >> > > 0001-workqueue-make-sanity-checks-less-punshing-using-WAR.patch >> > >> > > 0002-workqueue-make-workqueue_lock-irq-safe.patch >> > >> > workqueue_lock protects too many things. We can introduce different locks >> > for different purpose later. >> >> I don't know. My general attitude toward locking is the simpler the >> better. None of the paths protected by workqueue_lock are hot. >> There's no actual benefit in making them finer grained. > > Heh, I need to make workqueues and pools protected by a mutex rather > than spinlock, so I'm breaking out the locking after all. This is > gonna be a separate series of patches and it seems like there are > gonna be three locks - wq_mutex (pool and workqueues), pwq_lock > (spinlock protecting pwqs), wq_mayday_lock (lock for the mayday list).
Glad to hear this. wq_mayday_lock is needed at least. spin_lock_irq(workqueue_lock) with long loop in its C.S hurts RT people. Thanks, Lai > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
