[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1437576912.3484.8.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:55:12 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] workqueue: schedule WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work on
wq_unbound_cpumask CPUs
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 10:11 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:24:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
> > locally. This is a good thing normally, but not when the user has
>
> The constant name used there is a bit misleading but you can't put
> work items which are queued w/ queue_work() on foreign cpus by
> default. queue_work() has always guaranteed local execution. The
> problem is that workqueue can't currently tell whether a queue_work()
> user expects cpu locality for correctness or optimization. It'd be
> great if we introduce queue_work_on_local() or sth and replace
> correctness ones with it but that involves auditing each and every
> queue_work() usage. If anybody is up for the task, I'd be happy to
> help.
Oh well. That puts a big dent in the utility of wq_unbound_cpumask, but
too bad. If someone has a big enough HPC itch, they'll scratch it.
-Mike
--
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