From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752891AbbG1RXe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:23:34 -0400
Received: from mail-yk0-f193.google.com ([209.85.160.193]:33931 "EHLO
	mail-yk0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750712AbbG1RXc (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:23:32 -0400
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:23:29 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/14] kthread: Add
 wakeup_and_destroy_kthread_worker()
Message-ID: <20150728172329.GB5322@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <1438094371-8326-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com>
 <1438094371-8326-6-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1438094371-8326-6-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:39:22PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
...
> +void wakeup_and_destroy_kthread_worker(struct kthread_worker *worker)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *task = worker->task;
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!task))
> +		return;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irq(&worker->lock);
> +	if (worker->current_work)
> +		wake_up_process(worker->task);
> +	spin_unlock_irq(&worker->lock);
> +
> +	destroy_kthread_worker(worker);
> +}

I don't know.  Wouldn't it make far more sense to convert those wake
up events with queueings?  It seems backwards to be converting things
to work item based interface and then insert work items which wait for
external events.  More on this later.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun