[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B2F7879.2080901@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:30:33 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, awalls@...ix.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: workqueue thing
Hello, Peter.
On 12/21/2009 06:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 12:04 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> When IO goes wrong, in extreme
>> cases, it can easily take over thirty secs to recover and that's
>> required by the hardware specifications, so anything which ends up
>> waiting on IO can take a pretty long time. The only piece of code
>> which is necessary to support that is the code necessary to migrate
>> back tasks to CPUs when they come online again. It's not a lot of
>> ugly code.
>
> Why does it need to get migrated back, there are no affinity promises if
> you allow hotplug to continue, so it might as well complete and continue
> on the other cpu.
>
> And yes, it is a lot of very ugly code.
Migrating to online but !active CPU is necessary to call rescuers
during CPU_DOWN_PREPARE which is necessary to guarantee forward
progress during cpu down operation. Given that, the only extra code
which is necessary purely for migrating back when a CPU comes back
online is a few tens of lines of code which handles TRUSTEE_RELEASE
case. That's not a lot. If we do it differently (ie. let unbound
workers not process new works, just drain and let them die), it will
take more code.
I think you're primarily concerned with the scheduler modifications
and think that the choose-between-two-masks on migration is ugly. I
agree it's not the prettiest thing in this world but then again it's
not a lot of code. The reason why it looks ugly is because the way
migration is implemented and parameter is passed in. API-wise, I
think making kthread_bind() synchronized against cpu onliness should
be pretty clean.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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