[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7hbnjsohqf.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:38:32 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: Create low-level unbound workqueues cpumask
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:12:12AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 03/14/2015 07:49 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
[...]
>> >>
>> >> As I mentioned in an earlier discussion[1], I still think this could
>> >> default too the housekeeping CPUs in the NO_HZ_FULL case:
>> >>
>> >> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
>> >> cpumask_complement(wq_unbound_cpumask, tick_nohz_full_mask);
>> >
>> >
>> > No, the default/booted wq_unbound_cpumask should be cpu_possible_mask.
>> >
>>
>> Even for NO_HZ_FULL?
>>
>> IMO, for NO_HZ_FULL, we want the unbound workqueues to be on the
>> housekeeping CPU(s).
>
> If it should be the default on NO_HZ_FULL, maybe we should do this from the
> tick nohz code. Some late or fs initcall that will do the workqueue affinity,
> timer affinity, etc...
Sure, I'd be fine with that too.
Kevin
--
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