From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 V3] workqueue: substitute POOL_FREEZING with __WQ_FREEZING
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:20:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140421222035.GA22730@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1398081561-12618-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:59:20PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Only workqueues have freezable or freezing attribution/state, not worker pools.
> But POOL_FREEZING adds a suspicious state and makes reviewers confused.
>
> And it causes freeze_workqueues_begin() and thaw_workqueues() much complicated,
> they need to travel all the pools besides wqs.
>
> Since freezable is workqueue instance's attribution, and freezing
> is workqueue instance's state, so we introduce __WQ_FREEZING
> to wq->flags instead and remove POOL_FREEZING.
>
> It is different from POOL_FREEZING, POOL_FREEZING is simply set
> all over the world(all pools), while __WQ_FREEZING is only set for freezable wq.
> freeze_workqueues_begin()/thaw_workqueues() skip to handle non-freezable wqs
> and don't touch the non-freezable wqs' flags.
I was about to apply the patch and have updated the patch description.
While freezing takes place globally, its execution is per-workqueue;
however, the current implementation makes use of the per-worker_pool
POOL_FREEZING flag. While it's not broken, the flag makes the code
more confusing and complicates freeze_workqueues_begin() and
thaw_workqueues() by requiring them to walk through all pools.
Since freezable is a workqueue's attribute, and freezing is a
workqueue's state, let's introduce __WQ_FREEZING to wq->flags instead
and remove POOL_FREEZING.
It is different from POOL_FREEZING in that __WQ_FREEZING is only set
for freezable workqueues while POOL_FREEZING is set globally over all
pools. freeze_workqueues_begin() and thaw_workqueues() now skip
non-freezable workqueues.
But looking at the patch, why do we need __WQ_FREEZING at all? We
should be able to test workqueue_freezing in pwq_adjust_max_active(),
right? The only requirement there would be that
pwq_adjust_max_active(0 is invoked at least once after
workqueue_freezing is changed, which is already guaranteed.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-21 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-21 11:59 [PATCH 1/2 V3] workqueue: substitute POOL_FREEZING with __WQ_FREEZING Lai Jiangshan
2014-04-21 11:59 ` [PATCH 2/2 V3] workqueue: simple refactor pwq_adjust_max_active() Lai Jiangshan
2014-04-21 22:20 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2014-04-22 1:47 ` [PATCH 1/2 V3] workqueue: substitute POOL_FREEZING with __WQ_FREEZING Lai Jiangshan
2014-04-22 20:46 ` Tejun Heo
2014-04-23 1:37 ` Lai Jiangshan
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=20140421222035.GA22730@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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