[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180313201039.GB4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:10:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RT PATCH 2/2] block: blk-mq: move
blk_queue_usage_counter_release() into process context
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 07:42:41PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> +static void blk_queue_usage_counter_release_swork(struct swork_event *sev)
> +{
> + struct request_queue *q =
> + container_of(sev, struct request_queue, mq_pcpu_wake);
> +
> + wake_up_all(&q->mq_freeze_wq);
> +}
> +
> static void blk_queue_usage_counter_release(struct percpu_ref *ref)
> {
> struct request_queue *q =
> container_of(ref, struct request_queue, q_usage_counter);
>
> - wake_up_all(&q->mq_freeze_wq);
> + swork_queue(&q->mq_pcpu_wake);
> }
Depending on if we expect there to actually be wakeups, you could do
something like:
if (wq_has_sleepers(&q->mq_freeze_wq))
swork_queue(&q->mq_pcpu_wake));
avoiding the whole workqueue thing in the case there wasn't anybody
waiting for it. But since I don't know this code, I can't say if it
makes sense or not. Tejun?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists