[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zbfr52x97-tLP66t@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:18:15 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on
unbounded queue_delayed_work
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 07:05:35PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > if (housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_TIMER)) {
> > cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > if (!housekeeping_test_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TIMER))
> > cpu = housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER);
> > add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
> > } else {
> > if (likely(cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND))
> > add_timer(timer, cpu);
> > else
> > add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
> > }
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> I am not really against it, but for me it's kind of weird to have that many
> calls to add_timer_on() if we can avoid it.
>
> I would rather go with:
>
> ###
> if (unlikely(cpu != WORK_CPU_UNBOUND)) {
> add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
> return;
> }
>
> if (!housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_TIMER)) {
> add_timer(timer);
> return;
> }
>
> cpu = smp_processor_id();
> if (!housekeeping_test_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TIMER))
> cpu = housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER);
>
> add_timer_on(timer, cpu);
> ###
>
> What do you think?
Isn't that still the same number of add_timer[_on]() calls?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists