[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201215075044.GZ3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:50:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] workqueue: break affinity initiatively
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 01:44:53PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> I don't know how the scheduler distinguishes all these
> different cases under the "new assumption".
The special case is:
(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) && p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists