Re: [PATCH v9 06/12] kthread: Add kthread_drain_worker()

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:32:58PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:54:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > + * The caller is responsible for blocking all users of this kthread
> > > + * worker from queuing new works. Also it is responsible for blocking
> > > + * the already queued works from an infinite re-queuing!
> > 
> > This, I really dislike that. And it makes the kthread_destroy_worker()
> > from the next patch unnecessarily fragile.
> > 
> > Why not add a kthread_worker::blocked flag somewhere and refuse/WARN
> > kthread_queue_work() when that is set.
> 
> It's the same logic from workqueue counterpart.

So ? Clearly it (the kthread workqueue) can be improved here.

> For workqueue, nothing can make it less fragile as the workqueue
> struct itself is freed on destruction.  If its users fail to stop
> issuing work items, it'll lead to use-after-free.

Right, but this kthread thingy does not, so why not add a failsafe?

> IIRC, the draining of self-requeueing work items is a specific
> requirement from some edge use case which used workqueue to implement
> multi-step state machine. 

Right, that might be an issue,

> Given how rare that is 

Could you then not remove/rework these few cases for workqueue as well
and make that 'better' too?

> and the extra
> complexity of identifying self-requeueing cases, let's forget about
> draining and on destruction clear the worker pointer to block further
> queueing and then flush whatever is in flight.

You're talking about regular workqueues here?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>