Re: [PATCH 03/10 V2] workqueue: async worker destruction

[Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 05/13/2014 10:14 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,

> Given how other kworkers are named, maybe a better name is
> "kworker/dying" or "kworker/detached"?

I use "kworker/dying". the name of "attach/detach" should be hidden from userspace 

> 
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 02:32:52PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>> +	if (detach_completion)
>>>> +		complete(detach_completion);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Are we gonna use this function from somewhere else too?
>>
>> it is called from worker_thread().
>>
>> I don't want to unfold it into worker_thread(), it is better
>> readability when it is wrapped and it will be called in patch10
>> for rescuer.
> 
> Yeah, it's shared by rescuer later, so it's fine but, again, it
> probably helps to mention that it's planned to do so; otherwise, the
> rationale is kinda weak and what belongs to that function is rather
> arbitrary.

changelog is updated.

> 
>>>>  	/*
>>>>  	 * Become the manager and destroy all workers.  Grabbing
>>>> -	 * manager_arb prevents @pool's workers from blocking on
>>>> -	 * manager_mutex.
>>>> +	 * manager_arb ensures manage_workers() finish and enter idle.
>>>
>>> I don't follow what the above comment update is trying to say.
>>
>> If a pool is destroying, the worker will not call manage_workers().
>> but the existing manage_workers() may be still running.
>>
>> mutex_lock(&manager_arb) in put_unbound_pool() should wait this manage_workers()
>> finished due to the manager-worker (non-idle-worker) can't be destroyed.
> 
> Hmmm... I think it'd be better to spell it out then.  The single
> sentence is kinda cryptic especially because the two verbs in the
> sentence don't have the same subject (managee_workers() can't enter
> idle).
> 

All your comments in this patchset are handled except this one.
modifying to this comments is not necessarily in this patchset, so I just
remove this it. Your original comments in the code is OK for me.

Thanks,
Lai