[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54B4C46C.1000404@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:08:28 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
"Gu, Zheng" <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
tangchen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] workqueue: fixup existing pool->node
On 12/26/2014 04:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> The pwqs of the old node's cpumask do be discarded. But the pools of the old
>> node's cpumask maybe recycle. For example, a new workqueue's affinity is set to
>> the old node's cpumask before the pool is dead. Any old pool can long live.
>
> Hah? Why can't it just be unhashed so that it can't be looked up for
> new pwqs anymore?
>
unhashing doesn't reduce the complexity in my code.
for_each_pool(pool, pi) {
node = calc_pool_node(pool);
if (pool->node != node)
- pool->node = node;
+ unhash_pool(pool);
}
And any old pool can long live due to:
some works queues themself back and back
the old pool has extremely long pending works
So I prefer to fixup existing pool->node.
--
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