Re: [RFC v2 07/18] kthread: Allow to cancel kthread work

[Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>]

On Fri 2015-10-02 15:24:53, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 05:43:36PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > IMHO, we need both locks. The worker manipulates more works and
> > need its own lock. We need work-specific lock because the work
> > might be assigned to different workers and we need to be sure
> > that the operations are really serialized, e.g. queuing.
> 
> I don't think we need per-work lock.  Do we have such usage in kernel
> at all?  If you're worried, let the first queueing record the worker
> and trigger warning if someone tries to queue it anywhere else.  This
> doesn't need to be full-on general like workqueue.  Let's make
> reasonable trade-offs where possible.

I actually thought about this simplification as well. But then I am
in doubts about the API. It would make sense to assign the worker
when the work is being initialized and avoid the duplicate information
when the work is being queued:

	init_kthread_work(work, fn, worker);
	queue_work(work);

Or would you prefer to keep the API similar to workqueues even when
it makes less sense here?


In each case, we need a way to switch the worker if the old one
is destroyed and a new one is started later. We would need
something like:

	reset_work(work, worker)
or
	reinit_work(work, fn, worker)


Thanks for feedback.

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>