[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 12:09:58 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7 V6] workqueue: fix idle worker depletion
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
>
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 02:34:02AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> in 3.6 busy_worker_rebind() handle WORKER_REBIND bit,
>> not WORKER_UNBOUND bit.
>>
>> busy_worker_rebind() takes struct work_struct *work argument, we have to
>> add new patch to add a helper and restruct it at first.
>
> What's wrong with just treating manager as busy. Factor out,
> rebind_work scheduling from rebind_workers() and call it for busy
> workers and the manager if it exists. manage_workers() only need to
> call process_scheduled_works(). Wouldn't that work?
>
>> worker_maybe_bind_and_lock() 's mean is very clear
>> here. busy_worker_rebind() seems for busy workers, manager is not
>> busy workers.
>
> I don't know. It just seems unnecessarily wordy. If you don't like
> reusing the busy worker path, how about just calling
> maybe_bind_and_lock() unconditionally after locking manager_mutex? I
> mean, can't it just do the following?
>
> spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
>
> /*
> * Explain what's going on.
> */
> mutex_lock(&pool->manager_mutex);
> if (worker_maybe_bind_and_lock(worker))
> worker_clr_flags(worker, WORKER_UNBOUND);
> ret = true;
>
This code is correct. worker_maybe_bind_and_lock() can be called any time.
but I like to call it only when it is really needed.
Thanks.
Lai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists