[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZJNizvI-7A2hFDoM@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:51:26 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.co,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
fuyuanli@...iglobal.com, zwp10758@...il.com, zyhtheonly@...il.com,
zyhtheonly@...h.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/isolation: add a workqueue parameter to
constrain unbound CPUs
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 05:19:45PM +0800, tiozhang wrote:
...
> @@ -181,8 +181,8 @@ static int __init housekeeping_nohz_full_setup(char *str)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - flags = HK_FLAG_TICK | HK_FLAG_WQ | HK_FLAG_TIMER | HK_FLAG_RCU |
> - HK_FLAG_MISC | HK_FLAG_KTHREAD;
> + flags = HK_FLAG_TICK | HK_FLAG_TIMER | HK_FLAG_RCU | HK_FLAG_MISC
> + | HK_FLAG_KTHREAD;
Why is WQ being taken out of nohz_full setup? The patch description doesn't
mention anything.
> @@ -208,6 +208,12 @@ static int __init housekeeping_isolcpus_setup(char *str)
> continue;
> }
>
> + if (!strncmp(str, "workqueue,", 10)) {
> + str += 10;
> + flags |= HK_FLAG_WQ;
> + continue;
> + }
I wonder whether it'd be better to just add a workqueue boot param but if
this works it's fine too.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists