[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160621193709.GT30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:37:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Move wq_update_unbound_numa() to the
beginning of CPU_ONLINE
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:36:51AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 07:42:31PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > Subject: [PATCH] sched: allow kthreads to fallback to online && !active cpus
> > >
> > > During CPU hotplug, CPU_ONLINE callbacks are run while the CPU is
> > > online but not active. A CPU_ONLINE callback may create or bind a
> > > kthread so that its cpus_allowed mask only allows the CPU which is
> > > being brought online. The kthread may start executing before the CPU
> > > is made active and can end up in select_fallback_rq().
> > >
> > > In such cases, the expected behavior is selecting the CPU which is
> > > coming online; however, because select_fallback_rq() only chooses from
> > > active CPUs, it determines that the task doesn't have any viable CPU
> > > in its allowed mask and ends up overriding it to cpu_possible_mask.
> > >
> > > CPU_ONLINE callbacks should be able to put kthreads on the CPU which
> > > is coming online. Update select_fallback_rq() so that it follows
> > > cpu_online() rather than cpu_active() for kthreads.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > > Reported-by: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Hi Tejun,
> >
> > This patch fixes the issue on POWER. I am able to see the worker
> > threads of the unbound workqueues of the newly onlined node with this.
> >
> > Tested-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Peter?
Hurm.. So I've applied it, just to get this issue sorted, but I'm not
entirely sure I like it.
I think I prefer ego's version because that makes it harder to get stuff
to run on !active,online cpus. I think we really want to be careful what
gets to run during that state.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists