Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757269AbaKTQrb (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:47:31 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53704 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754913AbaKTQra (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:47:30 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:47:11 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Tejun Heo Cc: Petr Mladek , Rusty Russell , Jeff Epler , Jiri Kosina , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] virtio_balloon: Convert "vballoon" kthread into a workqueue Message-ID: <20141120164711.GA7495@redhat.com> References: <1416499397-16669-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.cz> <20141120160746.GI14877@htj.dyndns.org> <20141120162543.GA7466@redhat.com> <20141120162624.GA7479@redhat.com> <20141120162935.GK14877@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141120162935.GK14877@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:29:35AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 06:26:24PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 06:25:43PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:07:46AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 05:03:17PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > @@ -476,7 +460,6 @@ static void virtballoon_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev) > > > > > { > > > > > struct virtio_balloon *vb = vdev->priv; > > > > > > > > > > - kthread_stop(vb->thread); > > > > > remove_common(vb); > > > > > kfree(vb); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > Shouldn't the work item be flushed before removal is complete? > > > > > > In fact, flushing it won't help because it can requeue itself, right? > > There's cancel_work_sync() to stop the self-requeueing ones. What happens if queue_work runs while cancel_work_sync is in progress? Does it fail to queue? > > From that POV a dedicated WQ kept it simple. > > A dedicated wq doesn't do anything for that. You can't shut down a > workqueue with a pending work item on it. destroy_workqueue() will > try to drain the target wq, warn if it doesn't finish in certain > number of iterations and just keep trying indefinitely. > > Thanks. Right, so eventually we'll stop requeueuing and it will succeed? > -- > 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/