[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110930080914.GM10425@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 01:09:14 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Cc: Ripduman Sohan <Ripduman.Sohan@...cam.ac.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Restore cpus_allowed mask for sleeping
workqueue rescue threads
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:02:25AM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Thank you for taking the time to answer my query :-)
>
> I agree there is no real problem with having an additional task
> bound to an "isolated" CPU so long that it does not run and of
> course that if a task on an isolated CPU initiated activity that
> resulted in requiring the services of a rescuer workqueue thread it
> most certainly needs to run there and that is fine.
>
> I guess my question is - apart form running on the isolated CPU,
> does the fact that the rescuer thread is bound there can cause
> activity on that CPU originating from a foreign CPU, such as for
> example running an IPI handler in order to migrate it there?
Hmmm... indeed. This can cause an unnecessary wakeup / migration on
an isolated CPU when another CPU asks for the rescuer, so yeah it
makes sense to change the behavior. BTW, why didn't the original
patch simply use set_cpus_allowed_ptr(cpu_all_mask)?
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