Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:21:12 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7 V2] workqueue: simplify wq_update_unbound_numa()
Message-ID: <20150518202112.GC24861@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <1431433955-3173-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <1431433955-3173-3-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1431433955-3173-3-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1047
Lines: 28

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:32:30PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> wq_update_unbound_numa() is known be called with wq_pool_mutex held.
> 
> But wq_update_unbound_numa() requests wq->mutex before reading
> wq->unbound_attrs, wq->numa_pwq_tbl[] and wq->dfl_pwq.  But these fields
> were changed to be allowed being read with wq_pool_mutex held.  So we
> simply remove the mutex_lock(&wq->mutex).
> 
> Without the dependence on the the mutex_lock(&wq->mutex), the test
> of wq->unbound_attrs->no_numa can also be moved upward.
> 
> The old code need a long comment to describe the stableness of
> @wq->unbound_attrs which is also guaranteed by wq_pool_mutex now,
> so we don't need this such comment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>

Applied 1-2 to wq/for-4.2.

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/