From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f70.google.com (mail-lf0-f70.google.com [209.85.215.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866CB6B0253 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f70.google.com with SMTP id g18so30161654lfg.2 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s184si4218925wmb.39.2016.06.29.01.17.50 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:17:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:48 +0200 From: Petr Mladek Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/12] kthread: Add kthread_drain_worker() Message-ID: <20160629081748.GA3238@pathway.suse.cz> 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> <20160628170447.GE5185@htj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160628170447.GE5185@htj.duckdns.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo 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 On Tue 2016-06-28 13:04:47, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. I see. But then it does not address the original concern from Peter Zijlstra. He did not like that the caller was responsible for blocking further queueing. It still will be needed. Or did I miss something, 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: email@kvack.org