[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150401155212.GO9974@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:52:12 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 V5] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound
workqueue cpumask
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 04:33:30PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> The missing case:
> (@L & @U) is not empty but (@L & @U @O) is empty.
>
> In my old code (V5 patchset), the dfl_pwq uses (@L & @U), the scheduler will
> use cpu_possible_mask instead due to there is no cpu onlined among all cpu in (@L & @U).
> It is bad, the pwq is NOT controlled by @L nor @U now.
>
> I think we may use @U for the dfl_pwq in this case. But it will introduces
> a problem:
>
> When (@L & @U) has online cpu, the dfl_pwq's cpumaks is (@L & @U).
> when (@L & @U) has no online cpu, the dfl_pwq's cpumask is @U.
> It means dfl_pwq may need to be reallocated during the cpuhotplug-add/remove
> and it means wq_update_unbound_numa() can fail.
>
> Frederic, TJ, any comments about this case?
> TJ, would you like to make wq_update_unbound_numa() be failure-able?
The goal is making @L behave as cpu_possible_mask for workqueues,
right? If @L & @U is empty, fallback to @L. If @L & @O is empty,
leave it to the scheduler.
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