On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:45:58PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> v3:
> - [v2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> - Drop patch 1 as it has been merged into the for-6.9 branch.
> - Use rcu_access_pointer() to access wq->dfl_pwq.
> - Use RCU protection instead of acquiring wq->mutex in
> apply_wqattrs_cleanup().
Looks like we raced each other. I'll wait for v4.
Thanks.
--
tejun
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:53:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:45:58PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > v3:
> > - [v2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > - Drop patch 1 as it has been merged into the for-6.9 branch.
> > - Use rcu_access_pointer() to access wq->dfl_pwq.
> > - Use RCU protection instead of acquiring wq->mutex in
> > apply_wqattrs_cleanup().
>
> Looks like we raced each other. I'll wait for v4.
BTW, please don't bother to handle __WQ_ORDERED being cleared. We are very
close to removing the implicit ORDERED promotion, so we should be able to
apply the patch to remove the distinction between explicitly and implicitly
ordered workqueues.
Thanks.
--
tejun
On 2/5/24 19:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:53:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:45:58PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> v3:
>>> - [v2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>> - Drop patch 1 as it has been merged into the for-6.9 branch.
>>> - Use rcu_access_pointer() to access wq->dfl_pwq.
>>> - Use RCU protection instead of acquiring wq->mutex in
>>> apply_wqattrs_cleanup().
>> Looks like we raced each other. I'll wait for v4.
> BTW, please don't bother to handle __WQ_ORDERED being cleared. We are very
> close to removing the implicit ORDERED promotion, so we should be able to
> apply the patch to remove the distinction between explicitly and implicitly
> ordered workqueues.
OK, I saw your new commit 3bc1e711c26b ("workqueue: Don't implicitly
make UNBOUND workqueues w/ @max_active==1 ordered") in the for-6.9
branch. Will rebase my patch series on top of that and make the
necessary modification.
Thanks,
Longman
On 2/5/24 19:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:53:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:45:58PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> v3:
>>> - [v2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>> - Drop patch 1 as it has been merged into the for-6.9 branch.
>>> - Use rcu_access_pointer() to access wq->dfl_pwq.
>>> - Use RCU protection instead of acquiring wq->mutex in
>>> apply_wqattrs_cleanup().
>> Looks like we raced each other. I'll wait for v4.
> BTW, please don't bother to handle __WQ_ORDERED being cleared. We are very
> close to removing the implicit ORDERED promotion, so we should be able to
> apply the patch to remove the distinction between explicitly and implicitly
> ordered workqueues.
BTW, the workqueue.c file in your latest for-6.9 branch still has a
reference to __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT in workqueue_apply_unbound_cpumask().
Will that break compilation?
Regards,
Longman
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:24:06PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> On 2/5/24 19:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:53:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:45:58PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > v3:
> > > > - [v2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > > > - Drop patch 1 as it has been merged into the for-6.9 branch.
> > > > - Use rcu_access_pointer() to access wq->dfl_pwq.
> > > > - Use RCU protection instead of acquiring wq->mutex in
> > > > apply_wqattrs_cleanup().
> > > Looks like we raced each other. I'll wait for v4.
> > BTW, please don't bother to handle __WQ_ORDERED being cleared. We are very
> > close to removing the implicit ORDERED promotion, so we should be able to
> > apply the patch to remove the distinction between explicitly and implicitly
> > ordered workqueues.
>
> BTW, the workqueue.c file in your latest for-6.9 branch still has a
> reference to __WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICIT in workqueue_apply_unbound_cpumask().
> Will that break compilation?
Right you are. Will post a followup patch.
Thanks.
--
tejun