[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252333554.7959.35.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:25:54 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] lru_add_drain_all() vs isolation
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 16:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > flush_workqueue() could limit itself to cpus that had work queued since
> > the last flush_workqueue() invocation, etc.
>
> But "work queued since the last flush_workqueue() invocation" just means
> "has work queued". Please note that flush_cpu_workqueue() does nothing
> if there are no works, except it does lock/unlock of cwq->lock.
>
> IIRC, flush_cpu_workqueue() has to lock/unlock to avoid the races with
> CPU hotplug, but _perhaps_ flush_workqueue() can do the check lockless.
>
> Afaics, we can add the workqueue_struct->cpu_map_has_works to help
> flush_workqueue(), but this means we should complicate insert_work()
> and run_workqueue() which should set/clear the bit. But given that
> flush_workqueue() should be avoided anyway, I am not sure.
Ah, indeed. Then nothing new would be needed here, since it will indeed
not interrupt processing on the remote cpus that never queued any work.
--
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