[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zbf8AVZaXwmExroX@LeoBras>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:26:57 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
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
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 08:18:15AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?
Yeah, sorry about this, what I meant was: If we are ok on calling
add_timer_on() multiple times, I would rather go with the above version, as
I think it's better for readability.
>
> Thanks.
Thank you for reviewing!
Leo
>
> --
> tejun
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists