linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] workqueue: Schedule work on non-idle cpu instead of current one

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:44 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pjt@...gle.com,
	paul.mckenney@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de, tj@...nel.org,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, venki@...gle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	robin.randhawa@....com, Steve.Bannister@....com,
	Arvind.Chauhan@....com, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
	patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] workqueue: Schedule work on non-idle cpu instead of
 current one

On 25 September 2012 16:52, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 16:06 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> @@ -1066,8 +1076,9 @@ int queue_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>> struct work_struct *work)
>>  {
>>         int ret;
>>
>> -       ret = queue_work_on(get_cpu(), wq, work);
>> -       put_cpu();
>> +       preempt_disable();
>> +       ret = queue_work_on(wq_select_cpu(), wq, work);
>> +       preempt_enable();
>>
>>         return ret;
>>  }
>
> Right, so the problem I see here is that wq_select_cpu() is horridly
> expensive..

But this is what the initial idea during LPC we had. Any improvements here
you can suggest?

>> @@ -1102,7 +1113,7 @@ static void delayed_work_timer_fn(unsigned long
>> __data)
>>         struct delayed_work *dwork = (struct delayed_work *)__data;
>>         struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq = get_work_cwq(&dwork->work);
>>
>> -       __queue_work(smp_processor_id(), cwq->wq, &dwork->work);
>> +       __queue_work(wq_select_cpu(), cwq->wq, &dwork->work);
>>  }
>
> Shouldn't timer migration have sorted this one?

Maybe yes. Will investigate more on it.

Thanks for your early feedback.

--
viresh
--
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/