Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1343146 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5 05/20] kthread: Add destroy_kthread_worker()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v5 05/20] kthread: Add destroy_kthread_worker() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-25 13:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v5 05/20] kthread: Add destroy_kthread_worker() Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> - 2016-02-26 16:20 +0100

#1343146 — Re: [PATCH v5 05/20] kthread: Add destroy_kthread_worker()

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:56:55PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Also note that drain() correctly handles self-queuing works in compare
> with flush().

Nothing seems to prevent adding more work after drain() observes
list_empty().

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1344332

On Thu 2016-02-25 13:36:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:56:55PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Also note that drain() correctly handles self-queuing works in compare
> > with flush().
> 
> Nothing seems to prevent adding more work after drain() observes
> list_empty().

You might want to drain() more times during the kthread worker life
time to make sure that the work is done.

The user is responsible for stopping any queuing when this function
is called. The user usually needs to handle this anyway because
producing a work that could not be queued would cause problems.

To be honest, I wanted to keep the main principles of the API
compatible with workqueues. It should reduce some potential confusion.
Also it will make it easier to convert between the two APIs.
IMHO, there are work loads when you are not sure if you will
need a dedicated kthread when designing a new functionality.

Best Regards,
Petr

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web