[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd31ec02-4a52-995d-801a-95bec39f4944@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:13:15 -0400
From: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] padata: unbind parallel jobs from specific CPUs
On 8/22/19 12:13 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 08:52:23PM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote:
>>
>> @@ -191,22 +184,25 @@ static struct padata_priv *padata_get_next(struct parallel_data *pd)
>> padata = list_entry(reorder->list.next,
>> struct padata_priv, list);
>>
>> - list_del_init(&padata->list);
>> - atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);
>> + /*
>> + * The check fails in the unlikely event that two or more
>> + * parallel jobs have hashed to the same CPU and one of the
>> + * later ones finishes first.
>> + */
>> + if (padata->seq_nr == pd->processed) {
>> + list_del_init(&padata->list);
>> + atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);
>
> Now that you've changed the test for whether there is work to be
> done you also need to update the code at the end of padata_reorder
> that checks whether there is work to do. Otherwise we can end up
> in a busy loop that just wastes CPU cycles.
So we can, thanks for catching that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists