Re: [RFC PATCH 03/14] kthread: Add drain_kthread_worker()
From: Tejun Heo <hidden>
Date: 2015-07-28 17:18:27
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
Hello, On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:39:20PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+/* + * Test whether @work is being queued from another work + * executing on the same kthread. + */ +static bool is_chained_work(struct kthread_worker *worker) +{ + struct kthread_worker *current_worker; + + current_worker = current_kthread_worker(); + /* + * Return %true if I'm a kthread worker executing a work item on + * the given @worker. + */ + return current_worker && current_worker == worker; +}
I'm not sure full-on chained work detection is necessary here. kthread worker's usages tend to be significantly simpler and draining is only gonna be used for destruction.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+void drain_kthread_worker(struct kthread_worker *worker) +{ + int flush_cnt = 0; + + spin_lock_irq(&worker->lock); + worker->nr_drainers++; + + while (!list_empty(&worker->work_list)) { + /* + * Unlock, so we could move forward. Note that queuing + * is limited by @nr_drainers > 0. + */ + spin_unlock_irq(&worker->lock); + + flush_kthread_worker(worker); + + if (++flush_cnt == 10 || + (flush_cnt % 100 == 0 && flush_cnt <= 1000)) + pr_warn("kthread worker %s: drain_kthread_worker() isn't complete after %u tries\n", + worker->task->comm, flush_cnt); + + spin_lock_irq(&worker->lock); + }
I'd just do something like WARN_ONCE(flush_cnt++ > 10, "kthread worker: ..."). Thanks. -- tejun