Re: [PATCH] swap: remove the struct cpumask has_work

[Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 08/01/2014 12:09 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 7/31/2014 7:51 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 31-07-14 11:30:19, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> It is suggested that cpumask_var_t and alloc_cpumask_var() should be used
>>> instead of struct cpumask.  But I don't want to add this complicity nor
>>> leave this unwelcome "static struct cpumask has_work;", so I just remove
>>> it and use flush_work() to perform on all online drain_work.  flush_work()
>>> performs very quickly on initialized but unused work item, thus we don't
>>> need the struct cpumask has_work for performance.
>> Why? Just because there is general recommendation for using
>> cpumask_var_t rather than cpumask?
>>
>> In this particular case cpumask shouldn't matter much as it is static.
>> Your code will work as well, but I do not see any strong reason to
>> change it just to get rid of cpumask which is not on stack.
> 
> The code uses for_each_cpu with a cpumask to avoid waking cpus that don't
> need to do work.  This is important for the nohz_full type functionality,
> power efficiency, etc.  So, nack for this change.
> 

flush_work() on initialized but unused work item just disables irq and
fetches work->data to test and restores irq and return.

the struct cpumask has_work is just premature optimization.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>