[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140424153320.GF14460@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:33:20 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: Handle ordered workqueues on
cpumask_unbounds change
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:37:36PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Ordered unbound workqueues need some special care if we want to
> modify their CPU affinity. These can't be simply handled through
> apply_workqueue_attrs() since it works by hot plugging worker pools
> which has parallelism side effects and this would break ordering.
>
> The way we solve this is to change the affinity of the (presumaly
> unique) worker backing the ordered workqueues.
>
> NOTE: Now like Lai said, there may be bad side effects on this because
> ordered wq may share their worker pool with non-ordered workqueues.
> So changing the affinity of the worker itself is not a nice solution.
> This patch is very likely to be replaced by Lai's patch
> "workqueue: allow changing attributions of ordered workqueue"
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/15/181
Yeah, it bothers me that we're taking two completely different
approaches for ordered and !ordered workqueues. The only difference
between them is concurrency and it probably would be a better idea to
address that directly.
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