On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 18:52 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> So I agree with you, such recursion is indeed bad. Can we forbid this?
> In that case this patch is even more perfect :)
I haven't seen it complain in a few days so that probably means such
usage is rather rare :)
johannes
signature.asc
On 07/05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OTOH. Perhaps we can can forbid such a behaviour? Andrew, do you know
> > any good example of "keventd trying to flush its own queue" ?
>
> i'd prefer to make the API a little bit stricter: such recursion is
> na
* Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently it is allowed that work->func() does flush_workqueue() on
> its own workqueue. So we have
>
> run_workqueue()
> work->func()
> flush_workqueue()
> run_workqueue()
>
>
On 07/05, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> @@ -257,7 +261,9 @@ static void run_workqueue(struct cpu_wor
>
> BUG_ON(get_wq_data(work) != cwq);
> work_clear_pending(work);
> + lock_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map, 0, 0, 0, 2, _THIS_IP_);
> f(work);
> +
4 matches
Mail list logo
