[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 19:36:44 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kmod: Remove unecessary explicit wide CPU affinity
setting
On 07/07, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 06:30:30PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > Not only useless it even breaks nohz full. The housekeeping work
> > > (general kernel internal code that user doesn't care much about) is
> > > handled by a reduced set of CPUs in nohz full, precisely those that are
> > > not included by nohz_full= kernel parameters. For example unbound
> > > workqueues are handled by housekeeping CPUs.
> >
> > Confused... I do not see how workqueue_attrs->cpumask can depend on
> > tick_nohz_full_mask or housekeeping_mask. Could you explain?
>
> People who want CPU isolation will likely write
> /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/cpumask to a reduced set of CPUs, typically
> CPU 0 that is used for housekeeping in nohz full.
Well, khelper_wq is not WQ_SYSFS, so I am not sure this is possible.
But this doesn't really matter, people can change cpu affinity. But
"workqueues are handled by housekeeping CPUs" doesn't look right.
> In fact we should add the code which initialize wq_unbound_cpumask
> to housekeeping_mask automatically.
Perhaps, but until then the changelog above looks really confusing,
as if workqueue.c already does this automagically ;)
Oleg.
--
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