Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261152AbUCAKEb (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:04:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261154AbUCAKEb (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:04:31 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.173]:25543 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261152AbUCAKEa (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:04:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:04:26 +0100 (MET) From: Armin Schindler To: Linux Kernel Mailinglist Subject: workqueue function must be reentrant ? Message-ID: Organization: Cytronics & Melware MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:4f0aeee4703bc17a8237042c4702a75a Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 949 Lines: 27 Hi, with the new workqueue the kernel 2.6 provides, I thought I can remove my drivers kernel-thread. But looking at the workqueue code, it seems my workqueue-function must be reentrant on SMP. Not like the tasklet (where it is guaranteed that another tasklet_schedule() will put the tasklet-function onto a queue which will not be executed while another instance of my tasklet-function is still running) the workqueue function may be put onto the queue of another cpu and get called while the first one is still running on the first cpu. Is that correct? If yes, is it a bug or a feature? Should I go back to my own kernel-thread to have a user-context-function SMP-safe? Thanks for any hint Armin - 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/