From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb44.google.com (mail-yb1-xb44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78FE6211616A6 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb44.google.com with SMTP id u88-v6so1157745ybi.0 for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 10:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:41:16 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node Message-ID: <20181002174116.GG270328@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> References: <20180926214433.13512.30289.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20180926215138.13512.33146.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20180926215307.GA270328@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <9b002bbb-3e6d-9e99-d8f9-36df4306093e@linux.intel.com> <20180926220957.GB270328@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <20181001160142.GE270328@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <4eebc017-23a2-a26e-095c-66433061a141@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4eebc017-23a2-a26e-095c-66433061a141@linux.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Alexander Duyck Cc: len.brown@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zwisler@kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, rafael@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: Hello, On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 02:54:39PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >It might be better to leave queue_work_on() to be used for per-cpu > >workqueues and introduce queue_work_near() as you suggseted. I just > >don't want it to duplicate the node selection code in it. Would that > >work? > > So if I understand what you are saying correctly we default to > round-robin on a given node has no CPUs attached to it. I could > probably work with that if that is the default behavior instead of > adding much of the complexity I already have. Yeah, it's all in wq_select_unbound_cpu(). Right now, if the requested cpu isn't in wq_unbound_cpumask, it falls back to dumb round-robin. We can probably do better there and find the nearest node considering topology. > The question I have then is what should I do about workqueues that > aren't WQ_UNBOUND if they attempt to use queue_work_near? In that Hmm... yeah, let's just use queue_work_on() for now. We can sort it out later and users could already do that anyway. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm