[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110721055713.GQ3455@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:57:13 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: don't use flush_scheduled_work() in IRQ affinity
notifiers
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:49:20PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:45 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:28:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > This facility is enabled on all configurations with NET && SMP &&
> > > GENERIC_HARDIRQS, but at the moment is only useful for some net drivers
> > > (currently only one). So I don't think it should be creating a task at
> > > boot time. Does alloc_workqueue() still create any tasks immediately?
> >
> > Nope, no need to worry about it. The only added overhead is the
> > memory occupied by workqueue itself (which includes small percpu area
> > but one systemwide one isn't gonna hurt anyone and we've been
> > decreasing the number of workqueues significantly). It just serves as
> > a flush domain.
>
> Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier.
>
> Given what you've said, I see no problem with this change. So you can
> add:
>
> Acked-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Thomas, I suppose this should be routed through tip:irq/core? Or
shall I push it through wq tree?
Thank you.
--
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