[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140522134758.GA5065@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:47:58 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: remove the unneeded cpu_relax() in
__queue_work()
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:44:16PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> When pwq->refcnt == 0, the retrying is guaranteed to make forward-progress.
> The comment above the code explains it well:
>
> /*
> * pwq is determined and locked. For unbound pools, we could have
> * raced with pwq release and it could already be dead. If its
> * refcnt is zero, repeat pwq selection. Note that pwqs never die
> * without another pwq replacing it in the numa_pwq_tbl or while
> * work items are executing on it, so the retrying is guaranteed to
> * make forward-progress.
> */
>
> It means the cpu_relax() here is useless and sometimes misleading,
> it should retry directly and make some progress rather than waste time.
cpu_relax() doesn't have much to do with guaranteeing forward
progress. It's about giving a breather during busy wait so that the
waiting cpu doesn't busy loop claiming the same cache lines over and
over ultimately delaying the event being waited on. If you're doing a
busy wait, you better use cpu_relax().
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