[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwed4Q=T48QxNqhL3UL_f1XqQEBJ6mnA42iWiOAiZZO9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:01:11 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] workqueue fixes for v4.3-rc5
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, yes, it so _happens_ that "add_timer()" preferentially uses the
> current CPU etc, so in practice it may have happened to work. But
> there's absolutely zero reason to think it should always work that
> way.
Side note: even in practice, I think things like off-lining CPU's etc
(which some mobile environments seem to do as a power saving thing)
can end up moving timers to other CPU's even if they originally got
added on a particular cpu.
So I really think that the whole "schedule_delayed_work() ends up
running on the CPU" has actually never "really" been true. It has at
most been a "most of the time" thing, making it hard to see the
problem in practice.
Linus
--
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