From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>
Cc: Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: don't use execute_in_process_context()
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:19:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D0914B5.20208@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1292440246.4688.416.camel@mulgrave.site>
Hello,
On 12/15/2010 08:10 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> Yes, it would do, but we were already too far with the existing
>> implementation and I don't agree we need more when replacing it with
>> usual workqueue usage would remove the issue. So, when we actually
>> need them, let's consider that or any other way to do it, please.
>> A core API with only a few users which can be easily replaced isn't
>> really worth keeping around. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Not really ... since the fix is small and obvious.
IMHO, it's a bit too subtle to be a good API. The callee is called
under different (locking) context depending on the callsite and I've
been already bitten enough times from implicit THIS_MODULEs. Both
properties increase possbility of introducing problems which can be
quite difficult to detect and reproduce.
> Plus now it can't be moved into SCSI because I need the unremovable
> call chain.
Yes, with the proposed change, it cannot be moved to SCSI.
> Show me how you propose to fix it differently first, since we both agree
> the initial attempt doesn't work, and we can take the discussion from
> there.
Given that the structures containing the work items are dynamically
allocated, I would introduce a scsi_wq, unconditionally schedule
release works on them and flush them before unloading. Please note
that workqueues no longer require dedicated threads, so it's quite
cheap.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-15 19:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-19 12:57 [PATCH 1/2] scsi: remove bogus use of struct execute_work in sg Tejun Heo
2010-10-19 12:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] scsi: don't use execute_in_process_context() Tejun Heo
2010-10-22 10:03 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-12-12 22:48 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-14 9:53 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-14 14:09 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-14 14:19 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-14 14:26 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-14 14:33 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-15 3:04 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-15 15:47 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-15 15:54 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-15 16:00 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-15 17:22 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-15 19:05 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-15 19:10 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-15 19:19 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2010-12-15 19:33 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-15 19:42 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-15 19:46 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-16 14:39 ` James Bottomley
2010-12-16 15:51 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-15 19:34 ` Tejun Heo
2010-10-20 14:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] scsi: remove bogus use of struct execute_work in sg FUJITA Tomonori
2010-10-20 19:56 ` Douglas Gilbert
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=4D0914B5.20208@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@suse.de \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@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