Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752652AbaDCPnP (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Apr 2014 11:43:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:63403 "EHLO mail-wg0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752524AbaDCPnL (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Apr 2014 11:43:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 17:43:07 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Tejun Heo Cc: LKML , Christoph Lameter , Kevin Hilman , Mike Galbraith , "Paul E. McKenney" , Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] workqueues: Account unbound workqueue in a seperate list Message-ID: <20140403154303.GG23338@localhost.localdomain> 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> <20140403150128.GD24119@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140403150128.GD24119@htj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:01:28AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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? :) I see, it gets a little better now :) Maybe it still matters because I still need to iterate over unbound workqueues to apply an update on "cpu_unbound_wqs_mask". And the list must remain stable while I call apply_workqueue_attrs() on workqueues. Anyway, we'll see how it looks like :) -- 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/