Re: [PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Allow changing attributions of ordered workqueues

[Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 05/17/2014 12:16 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> @@ -3708,6 +3712,13 @@ static void rcu_free_pwq(struct rcu_head *rcu)
>  			container_of(rcu, struct pool_workqueue, rcu));
>  }
>  
> +static struct pool_workqueue *oldest_pwq(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
> +{
> +	return list_last_entry(&wq->pwqs, struct pool_workqueue, pwqs_node);
> +}
> +
> +static void pwq_adjust_max_active(struct pool_workqueue *pwq);


Hi, Tejun,

Should we reorder the pwq_adjust_max_active() to avoid this declare?
(Move pwq_adjust_max_active() to the place just before rcu_free_pwq())

Thanks,
Lai

> +
>  /*
>   * Scheduled on system_wq by put_pwq() when an unbound pwq hits zero refcnt
>   * and needs to be destroyed.
> @@ -3723,14 +3734,12 @@ static void pwq_unbound_release_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND)))
>  		return;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Unlink @pwq.  Synchronization against wq->mutex isn't strictly
> -	 * necessary on release but do it anyway.  It's easier to verify
> -	 * and consistent with the linking path.
> -	 */
>  	mutex_lock(&wq->mutex);
>  	list_del_rcu(&pwq->pwqs_node);
>  	is_last = list_empty(&wq->pwqs);
> +	/* try to activate the oldest pwq when needed */
> +	if (!is_last && (wq->flags & __WQ_ORDERED))
> +		pwq_adjust_max_active(oldest_pwq(wq));
>  	mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);