From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: problems in linux-next (Was: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 1) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:00:40 +0900 Message-ID: <4B16F198.20100@kernel.org> References: <20091201190301.0fb7abad.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4B14D6E2.2040704@petalogix.com> <20091201210343.f0a1d353.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4B152D22.9070001@kernel.org> <20091201160119.GA10826@elte.hu> <4B15A5A6.2090200@kernel.org> <4B16E727.9070104@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:51124 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754950AbZLBW7k (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:59:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Ingo Molnar , Stephen Rothwell , michal.simek@petalogix.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Rusty Russell Hello, On 12/03/2009 07:24 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> For colored workqueue flushing, it ends up using more than three bits. >> I haven't decided it fully yet but total of six or seven depending on >> how many colors are used. So, we need forced alignment anyway. > > If it is that much then why not stick it into the structure? There'll only be a handful of cwqs but a lot of works. Adding a flags field to work_struct might not hurt too much but all the code to handle it is already there except for alignment on UP, so I'm a bit reluctant to enlarge work_struct just for it. > It only makes sense to use the flags in the address if you otherwise > do not touch the structure. work_struct isn't being changed at all. What gets aligned is cpu_workqueue_struct which allows more bits for flags in work_struct. Thanks. -- tejun