[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150717154316.GE15934@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:43:16 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: avoiding unbounded wq on isolated CPUs by
default
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:35:09PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Initializing wq unbound cpumask to housekeeping_mask is still the
> plan. I just remember we didn't do it in Lai's series because it
> was slightly unrelated. When a patchset is complicated, like Lai's,
> it's better to keep it focus to a single purpose.
>
> Anyway that patch is welcome.
Ah, cool, can you ack it explicitly?
> > Yeah, I think I asked Lai to try a different approach where we
> > regulate it from queueing path rather than playing with pwqs. I think
> > that'd end up quite a bit simpler.
>
> Ordered workqueues aren't handled currently? I tried setting the unbound
> cpumask and it also applied to khelper which is a singlethread (and thus
> ordered) workqueue.
Hmmm... AFAICS, it shouldn't work.
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