From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-f171.google.com (mail-yk0-f171.google.com [209.85.160.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366B26B0256 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r207so35382418ykd.2 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yk0-x22f.google.com (mail-yk0-x22f.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j188si6605575ywb.100.2016.01.29.10.28.57 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:28:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id k129so79205622yke.0 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:28:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:28:56 -0500 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue Message-ID: <20160129182856.GP3628@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20151203093350.GP17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20151203100018.GO11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20151203144811.GA27463@mtj.duckdns.org> <20151203150442.GR17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20151203150604.GC27463@mtj.duckdns.org> <20151203192616.GJ27463@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160126173843.GA11115@ulmo.nvidia.com> <20160128101210.GC6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160129110941.GK32380@htj.duckdns.org> <20160129151739.GA1087@worktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160129151739.GA1087@worktop> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thierry Reding , Ulrich Obergfell , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, Jon Hunter , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk, Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org Hey, Peter. On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:17:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 06:09:41AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I posted a patch to disable > > disable flush dependency checks on those workqueues and there's a > > outreachy project to weed out the users of the old interface, so > > hopefully this won't be an issue soon. > > Will that same project review all workqueue users for the strict per-cpu > stuff, so we can finally kill that weird stuff you do on hotplug? Unfortunately not. We do want to distinguish cpu-affine for correctness and as an optimization; however, making that distinction is unlikely to make the dynamic worker affinity binding go away. We can't forcifully shut down workers which are executing work items which are affine as an optimization when the CPU goes down. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org