Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: xen-pciback: Remove create_workqueue

[Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:01:14PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 09:24:11PM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote:
> > With concurrency managed workqueues, use of dedicated workqueues can be
> > replaced by using system_wq. Drop host->intr_wq by using
                                      ^
                                      xen_pcibk_wq
> > system_wq.
> > 
> > Since there is only a single work item, increase of concurrency level by
> > switching to system_wq should not break anything.
> 
> _should_ not? Hehe. I presume this has not been tested?

Yeah, this is a part of sweeping conversions and it's challenging (and
often impossible for specific drivers) to setup test environments.
xen isn't as bad but can still be a pretty specialized setup.  The
conversions aren't high risk and shouldn't be too difficult to root
cause when something goes south.  We'd greatly appreciate any helps
with reviewing and testing.

> > cancel_work_sync() has been used in xen_pcibk_disconnect() to ensure that
> > work item is not pending or executing by the time exit path runs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@xxxxxxxxx>
> > @@ -76,8 +75,7 @@ static void xen_pcibk_disconnect(struct xen_pcibk_device 
> > *pdev)
> >     /* If the driver domain started an op, make sure we complete it
> >      * before releasing the shared memory */
> > 
> > -   /* Note, the workqueue does not use spinlocks at all.*/
> > -   flush_workqueue(xen_pcibk_wq);
> > +   cancel_work_sync(&pdev->op_work);

Should it be flush_work() instead?  Is it okay for a pdev->op_work to
be queued and canceled without actually getting executed?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel