Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 11:01:28 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] workqueues: Account unbound workqueue in a seperate
 list
Message-ID: <20140403150128.GD24119@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <1395940862-31428-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1395940862-31428-3-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20140330125751.GC8942@htj.dyndns.org>
 <20140403144826.GE23338@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140403144826.GE23338@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:48:28PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Wouldn't the right thing to do would be factoring out
> > apply_workqueue_attrs_locked()?  It's cleaner to block out addition of
> > new workqueues while the masks are being updated anyway.
> 
> I'm not quite sure I get what you suggest. Do you mean have
> apply_workqueue_attrs_locked() calling apply_workqueue_attrs() under
> the lock on this patch?

Not sure it still matters but I was suggesting that creating
apply_workqueue_attrs_locked() which requires the caller to handle
locking and making apply_workqueue_attrs() a wrapper which grabs and
releases lock around it, and using the former in locked iteration
would work.  lol has this explanation made it any clearer or is it
even worse now?  :)

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/