[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <jhjy2gyyr5o.mognet@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:57:23 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
cai@...hat.com, vincent.donnefort@....com, decui@...rosoft.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tj@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU
On 12/01/21 15:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -4919,8 +4922,10 @@ static void unbind_workers(int cpu)
>
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
> - for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool)
> + for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
> + kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, false);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_possible_mask) < 0);
> + }
Doesn't this supersede patch 1? With patch 4 on top, the BALANCE_PUSH
stuff should start resetting the affinity of the kworkers for which we
are removing the IS_PER_CPU flag.
It's the only nit I have, the rest looks good to me so:
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
I'll go frob that sched_cpu_dying() warning.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists