2022-11-22 01:21:42

by Tejun Heo

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 rcu 13/16] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush()

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:04:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one
> in queue_rcu_work(), given that callers to queue_rcu_work() are
> not necessarily OK with long delays.

So, this is fine but another thing we can do is propagating the distinction
through the workqueue interface so that the the choice can be made by
workqueue users. Would that make sense?

Thanks.

--
tejun

2022-11-22 02:18:23

by Paul E. McKenney

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 rcu 13/16] workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_flush()

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:09:29PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 05:04:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one
> > in queue_rcu_work(), given that callers to queue_rcu_work() are
> > not necessarily OK with long delays.
>
> So, this is fine but another thing we can do is propagating the distinction
> through the workqueue interface so that the the choice can be made by
> workqueue users. Would that make sense?

It might well! My thought was to wait to suggest that until we found a
real-life case where this was needed, but I have no objection to being
proactive here.

But the hard part... Thought for a good name? ;-)

Thanx, Paul