On 8/22/19 12:13 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 08:52:23PM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote:@@ -191,22 +184,25 @@ static struct padata_priv *padata_get_next(struct parallel_data *pd) padata = list_entry(reorder->list.next, struct padata_priv, list);- list_del_init(&padata->list);- atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects); + /* + * The check fails in the unlikely event that two or more + * parallel jobs have hashed to the same CPU and one of the + * later ones finishes first. + */ + if (padata->seq_nr == pd->processed) { + list_del_init(&padata->list); + atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);Now that you've changed the test for whether there is work to be done you also need to update the code at the end of padata_reorder that checks whether there is work to do. Otherwise we can end up in a busy loop that just wastes CPU cycles.
So we can, thanks for catching that.
