From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add unschedule_delayed_work to the workqueue API
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:57:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041018155727.3ba8cbea.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1098137747.1714.351.camel@mulgrave>
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The probability that the handler is running when you call
> > cancel_delayed_work() is surely very low. And the probability that there
> > is more than one thing pending in the queue at that time is also low.
> > Multiplying them both together, then multiplying that by the relative
> > expense of the handler makes me say "show me" ;)
>
> OK. In the current code, domain validation is done from the workqueue
> interface. This can take several seconds per target to complete. Why
> should I have to wait this extra time. As I move other SCSI daemon
> threads to being work queue items, these times rise.
You mean the scsi code wants to schedule a work some time in the future and
that when it executes, the handler will then run for several seconds?
If so, it sounds like this is the wrong mechanism to use. We certainly
don't want keventd gone to lunch for that long, and even if the kernel
threads were privately created by the scsi code, you'll have to create many
such threads to get any sort of parallelism across many disks. I suspect
I'm missing something.
> However, now there's a worse problem. If I want to cancel a piece of
> work synchronously, flush_scheduled_work() makes me dependent on the
> execution of all the prior pieces of work. If some of them are related,
> like Domain Validation and device unlocking say, I have to now be
> extremely careful that the place I cancel and flush from isn't likely to
> deadlock with any other work scheduled on the device. This makes it a
> hard to use interface.
Well yes, the caller wouldn't want to be holding any locks which cause
currently-queued works to block.
> By contrast, the proposed patch will *only* wait
> if the item of work is currently executing. This is a (OK reasonably
> given the aic del_timer_sync() issues) well understood deadlock
> problem---the main point being I now don't have to consider any of the
> other work that might be queued.
OK.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-18 22:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-18 16:31 [PATCH] add unschedule_delayed_work to the workqueue API James Bottomley
2004-10-18 21:25 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-18 21:26 ` James Bottomley
2004-10-18 21:29 ` James Bottomley
2004-10-18 21:43 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-18 21:47 ` James Bottomley
2004-10-18 22:02 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-18 22:15 ` James Bottomley
2004-10-18 22:57 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2004-10-18 23:24 ` James Bottomley
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=20041018155727.3ba8cbea.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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