[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <553F6189.2070405@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:31:37 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: <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>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 V8] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue
cpumask
On 04/28/2015 12:36 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 23:44 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>>> So, we need an API to modify the wq_unbound_cpumask, and I provided
>>> this public function. Otherwise, the other code can't modify it.
>>
>> I see. I don't have too strong an opinion; however, changing the mask
>> is a fairly heavy operation. Are there specific reasons why we don't
>> want to follow the nohz config right away?
>
> Isolation is not only applicable to nohz_full. Many loads are
> unsuitable for nohz_full, yet require maximum isolation.
>
> ATM, nohz_full is not dynamic, but hopefully one day will be. In the
> here and now, we can isolate cores from the scheduler on the fly via
> cpusets, a prime API user candidate.
>
> -Mike
>
So, the public function needs to be kept and the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
is killed?
--
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