On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:46:30PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:

On 07/26/2010 05:34 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

Hello,

On 07/26/2010 05:25 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

BTW, kthread_worker would benefit from the optimization I implemented
here as well.

Hmmm... I'm not quite sure whether it's an optimization.  I thought
the patch was due to feeling uncomfortable about using barriers?  Is
it an optimization?

Yeah, one less smp_mb() in execution path.  The lock dancing in
flush() is ugly but then again mucking with barriers could be harder
to understand.  Care to send a patch against wq#for-next tree?

Thanks.

Sure. Where's that, exactly?

-- 
tejun