public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, avi@redhat.com, efault@gmx.de,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched: implement force_cpus_allowed()
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:56:16 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B1E3EE0.7030001@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1260272885.3935.1189.camel@laptop>

Hello,

On 12/08/2009 08:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Why bother with that?
> 
> workqueue's CPU_POST_DEAD will flush the workqueue and destroy all
> threads under cpu_add_remove_lock, which excludes the cpu from coming
> back up before its fully destroyed.
> 
> So there's no remaining tasks to be migrated back.
> 
> Changing that semantics is not worthwhile.

It is worthwhile because the goal is to unify all worker pool
mechanisms.  So, slow_work or whatnot (scsi EHs, FS specific worker
pools, async workers used for parallel probing) will all be converted
to use workqueue instead and with that we can't afford to wait for all
works to flush to down a cpu.  All that's necessary to implement that
is migrating back the unbound workers which can be implemented as a
separate piece of code apart from regular operation.  It would even
benefit the current implementation as it makes cpu up/down operations
much more deterministic.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-08 11:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-02  3:56 [PATCHSET tip/sched/core] sched: concurrency managed workqueue related sched patches Tejun Heo
2009-12-02  3:56 ` [PATCH 1/7] sched: revert 498657a478c60be092208422fefa9c7b248729c2 Tejun Heo
2009-12-02 10:42   ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Revert 498657a478c60be092208422fefa9c7b248729c2 tip-bot for Tejun Heo
2009-12-02  3:56 ` [PATCH 2/7] sched: rename preempt_notifiers to sched_notifiers and refactor implementation Tejun Heo
2009-12-02  3:56 ` [PATCH 3/7] sched: refactor try_to_wake_up() Tejun Heo
2009-12-02  9:05   ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-02  9:51     ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-02 10:10       ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-02 10:14         ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-02 11:01           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-03  6:11   ` [PATCH UDPATED " Tejun Heo
2009-12-02  3:56 ` [PATCH 4/7] sched: implement force_cpus_allowed() Tejun Heo
2009-12-04 10:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-04 10:43     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-07  4:34       ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-07  8:35         ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-07 10:34           ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-07 10:54             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-07 11:07               ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-08  8:41                 ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-08  9:02                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-08  9:12                     ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-08 10:34                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-08 10:38                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-08 11:26                           ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-08 11:24                         ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-08 11:48                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-08 11:56                             ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2009-12-08 12:10                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-08 12:23                                 ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-08 13:35                                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-09  5:25                                     ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-09  7:41                                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-09  8:03                                         ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-02  3:56 ` [PATCH 5/7] sched: make sched_notifiers unconditional Tejun Heo
2009-12-02  3:56 ` [PATCH 6/7] sched: add wakeup/sleep sched_notifiers and allow NULL notifier ops Tejun Heo
2009-12-02  3:56 ` [PATCH 7/7] sched: implement try_to_wake_up_local() Tejun Heo
2009-12-03  6:13   ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2009-12-04 10:47     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-07  3:31       ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-04 10:44   ` [PATCH " Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-07  3:26     ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-07  8:50       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-07  8:56         ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-07 10:27           ` Tejun Heo
2009-12-08  8:53             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-08  9:16               ` 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=4B1E3EE0.7030001@kernel.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --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