[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YAMCkDx9BjA9w+mg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:13:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
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>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 01:45:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 02:27:09PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > I feel nervous to use kthread_park() here and kthread_parkme() in
> > worker thread. And adding kthread_should_park() to the fast path
> > also daunt me.
>
> Is that really such a hot path that an additional load is problematic?
I think we can remove it. It would mean the kthread_park() from the
online callback will take a bit longer, as it will have to wait for all
the works to complete, but that should not be a fundamental problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists