[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMqcGUderg8v5SEz@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:10:33 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE_WORKER
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 11:53:01AM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > You really shouldn't be setting affinities on kworkers manually. There's
> > no way of knowing which kworker is going to execute which workqueue.
> > Please use the attributes API and sysfs interface to modify per-workqueue
> > worker attributes. If that's not sufficient and you need finer grained
> > control, the right thing to do is using kthread_worker which gives you a
> > dedicated kthread that you can manipulate as appropriate.
>
> I completely agree. Each kworker has PF_NO_SETAFFINITY applied anyway.
> If I understand correctly, only an unbound kworker can have their CPU
> affinity modified via sysfs. The objective of this series was to easily
> identify a rescuer kworker from user-mode.
But why do you need to identify rescue workers? What are you trying to
achieve?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists