From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/12] kthread: Add kthread_drain_worker()
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:33:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160627143350.GA3313@pathway.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160624155447.GY3262@mtj.duckdns.org>
Hi,
On Fri 2016-06-24 11:54:47, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:05:15AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Given how rare that is
> >
> > Could you then not remove/rework these few cases for workqueue as well
> > and make that 'better' too?
>
> Usage of draining is rare for workqueue but that still means several
> legitimate users. With draining there, it's logical to use it during
> shutdown. I don't think it makes sense to change it on workqueue
> side.
>
> > > 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?
>
> No, kthread worker. It's unlikely that kthread worker is gonna need
> chained draining especially given that most of its usages are gonna be
> conversions from raw kthread usages. We won't lose much if anything
> by just ignoring draining and making the code simpler.
OK, so you suggest to do the following:
1. Add a flag into struct kthread_worker that will prevent
from further queuing.
2. kthread_create_worker()/kthread_destroy_worker() will
not longer dynamically allocate struct kthread_worker.
They will just start/stop the kthread.
The result will be:
a. User will not need the strict synchronization between
the queue and create/destroy operations.
b. We could get rid of drain_kthread_worker() because
flush_kthread_worker() will be enough.
IMHO, the 1st change does not make sense without the 2nd one.
Otherwise, users could do an out-of-memory access when testing
the freed kthread_worker flag.
Do I get this correctly please?
Best Regards,
Petr
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-27 14:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-16 11:17 [PATCH v9 00/12] kthread: Kthread worker API improvements Petr Mladek
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 01/12] kthread: Rename probe_kthread_data() to kthread_probe_data() Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 19:16 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 02/12] kthread: Kthread worker API cleanup Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 19:27 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 03/12] kthread/smpboot: Do not park in kthread_create_on_cpu() Petr Mladek
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 04/12] kthread: Allow to call __kthread_create_on_node() with va_list args Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 19:51 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 05/12] kthread: Add kthread_create_worker*() Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 19:55 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 06/12] kthread: Add kthread_drain_worker() Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 19:56 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-22 20:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-23 21:32 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-24 7:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-24 9:08 ` Petr Mladek
2016-06-24 15:54 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-27 14:33 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2016-06-28 17:04 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-29 8:17 ` Petr Mladek
2016-06-29 13:15 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 07/12] kthread: Add kthread_destroy_worker() Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 19:57 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 08/12] kthread: Detect when a kthread work is used by more workers Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 20:10 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 09/12] kthread: Initial support for delayed kthread work Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 20:20 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 10/12] kthread: Allow to cancel " Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 20:27 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 11/12] kthread: Allow to modify delayed " Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 20:29 ` Tejun Heo
2016-06-16 11:17 ` [PATCH v9 12/12] kthread: Better support freezable kthread workers Petr Mladek
2016-06-20 20:30 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160627143350.GA3313@pathway.suse.cz \
--to=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox