From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f197.google.com (mail-qt0-f197.google.com [209.85.216.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931C76B0005 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-f197.google.com with SMTP id v18so50951999qtv.0 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m124si6500838ybf.118.2016.06.28.10.04.49 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id z142so16814979qkb.3 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:04:47 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/12] kthread: Add kthread_drain_worker() Message-ID: <20160628170447.GE5185@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1466075851-24013-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <1466075851-24013-7-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <20160622205445.GV30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160623213258.GO3262@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160624070515.GU30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160624155447.GY3262@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160627143350.GA3313@pathway.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160627143350.GA3313@pathway.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Petr Mladek Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Jiri Kosina , Borislav Petkov , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:33:50PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > OK, so you suggest to do the following: > > 1. Add a flag into struct kthread_worker that will prevent > from further queuing. This doesn't add any protection, right? It's getting freed anyway. > 2. kthread_create_worker()/kthread_destroy_worker() will > not longer dynamically allocate struct kthread_worker. > They will just start/stop the kthread. Ah, okay, I don't think we need to change this. I was suggesting to simplify it by dropping the draining and just do flush from destroy. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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: email@kvack.org