[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X/236obyM0nqL5+X@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:53:30 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip V3 0/8] workqueue: break affinity initiatively
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:33:03PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > Well yes, but afaict the workqueue stuff hasn't been settled yet, and
> > the rcutorture patch Paul did was just plain racy and who knows what
> > other daft kthread users are out there. That and we're at -rc3.
>
> I just send the V4 patchset for the workqueue. Please take a look.
Yes, I've seen it. But I think this approach is smaller and simpler.
By distinguishing between geniuine per-cpu kthreads and kthreads that
happen to have a single CPU affinity, things become much simpler and
robust.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists