Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:24:00 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, jmoyer@redhat.com,
        zab@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET wq/for-3.10-tmp] workqueue: implement workqueue with
 custom worker attributes
Message-ID: <20130311152400.GK24522@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <1362194662-2344-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <513C61B9.5030004@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20130310120113.GC24522@htj.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130310120113.GC24522@htj.dyndns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1251
Lines: 32

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:01:13AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Lai.
> 
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:34:33PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > This patchset contains the following 31 patches.
> > > 
> > >  0001-workqueue-make-sanity-checks-less-punshing-using-WAR.patch
> > 
> > >  0002-workqueue-make-workqueue_lock-irq-safe.patch
> > 
> > workqueue_lock protects too many things. We can introduce different locks
> > for different purpose later.
> 
> I don't know.  My general attitude toward locking is the simpler the
> better.  None of the paths protected by workqueue_lock are hot.
> There's no actual benefit in making them finer grained.

Heh, I need to make workqueues and pools protected by a mutex rather
than spinlock, so I'm breaking out the locking after all.  This is
gonna be a separate series of patches and it seems like there are
gonna be three locks - wq_mutex (pool and workqueues), pwq_lock
(spinlock protecting pwqs), wq_mayday_lock (lock for the mayday list).

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/