Hello, Boqun. On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:21:17PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > +static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(wq_manager_wait); /* wait for manager to go > > away */ > > I think this wait_queue_head better be a per-pool one rather than shared > among pools?
It should be fine either way. All the involved operations are pretty low frequency. > > @@ -3338,7 +3332,10 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool > > *pool) > > if (pool->detach_completion) > > wait_for_completion(pool->detach_completion); > > > > - mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_arb); > > + spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock); > > + pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE; > > + wake_up(&wq_manager_wait); > > + spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock); > > > > Is the above code necesarry? IIUC, we are going to free the pool > entirely, so whether manager is active is pointless here and no one is > waiting for the ->flags of *this* pool to be !POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE. > > Am I missing something subtle here? Ah, true. I'll drop the above chunk. Thanks. -- tejun
