From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplug to keep idle workers
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:02:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120720170255.GE32763@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1342799311.2583.7.camel@twins>
Hey, Peter.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 05:48:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 10:12 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > While this makes rebinding somewhat more complicated, as it has to be
> > able to rebind idle workers too, it allows overall hotplug path to be
> > much simpler.
>
> I really don't see the point of re-binding.. at that point you've well
> and proper violated any per-cpu expectation, so why not complete running
> the works on the disassociated thing and let new works accrue on the
> per-cpu things again?
We've discussed this a couple times now, so the existing reasons were,
* Local affinity is more often used as a form of affinity optimization
since the beginning. This, mixed with queue_work() /
queue_work_on(), does make things muddy.
* With local affinity used for optimization, we better support
detaching running workers - before cmwq, this used to be one of the
sources of trouble during power state changes.
* So, we have unbound workers which started as bound while a CPU is
down. When the CPU comes back up again, we can do one of the
followings - 1. migrate the unbound ones to WORK_CPU_UNBOUND (can
also do this on CPU_DOWN), 2. leave them unbound and keep them
running in parallel with bound ones, or 3. rebind them. #2 is the
hariest - it contaminates the usual !hotplug code paths. #1 or #3,
unsure, but given how global_cwq's don't usually interact with each
other, I thought #3 would be lower impact on hot paths.
So, the above was my rationale before this "we need to stop destroying
and re-creating kthreads across CPU hotplug events because phones do
it gazillion times". Now, I don't think we have any other way.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-20 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-17 17:12 [PATCHSET] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplug to keep idle workers Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 1/9] workqueue: perform cpu down operations from low priority cpu_notifier() Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 21:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-20 21:58 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-21 21:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-22 16:43 ` [PATCH] workqueue: fix spurious CPU locality WARN from process_one_work() Tejun Heo
2012-07-22 21:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 2/9] workqueue: drop CPU_DYING notifier operation Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 3/9] workqueue: ROGUE workers are UNBOUND workers Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 4/9] workqueue: use mutex for global_cwq manager exclusion Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 5/9] workqueue: drop @bind from create_worker() Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 6/9] workqueue: reimplement CPU online rebinding to handle idle workers Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 7/9] workqueue: don't butcher idle workers on an offline CPU Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 8/9] workqueue: remove CPU offline trustee Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 17:12 ` [PATCH 9/9] workqueue: simplify CPU hotplug code Tejun Heo
2012-07-17 18:43 ` [PATCHSET] workqueue: reimplement CPU hotplug to keep idle workers Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-07-17 19:40 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 15:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 17:02 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-07-20 17:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 17:50 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 18:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 18:34 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 19:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-07-20 19:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-21 6:42 ` Shilimkar, Santosh
2012-07-23 8:38 ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-07-20 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 16:52 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 17:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 17:08 ` Tejun Heo
2012-07-20 17:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 17:43 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120720170255.GE32763@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox