From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:09:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20180926220957.GB270328@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9b002bbb-3e6d-9e99-d8f9-36df4306093e-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Alexander Duyck Cc: len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, jiangshanlai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, zwisler-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org, rafael-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 03:05:17PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > I am using unbound workqueues. However there isn't an interface that > exposes the NUMA bits of them directly. All I am doing with this > patch is adding "queue_work_near" which takes a NUMA node as an > argument and then copies the logic of "queue_work_on" with the > exception that I am doing a check to verify that there is an > intersection between wq_unbound_cpumask and the cpumask of the node, > and then passing a CPU from that intersection into "__queue_work". Can it just take a cpu id and not feed that to __queue_work()? That looks like a lot of extra logic. Thanks. -- tejun