[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160615131415.GI30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:14:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue:Fix affinity of an unbound worker of a
node with 1 online CPU
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:20:33PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> We will no longer have the optimization in
> restore_unbound_workers_cpumask() but I suppose we don't lose much by
> resetting the affinity every time a CPU in the pool->attr->cpumask
> comes online.
Right; optimizing hotplug really isn't worth it. The code needs to be
simple and robust (ha! funny).
In any case, Tejun, does this work for you?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists