Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752919AbaB0Onl (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:43:41 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:59991 "EHLO mail-wg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751607AbaB0Onj (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:43:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:43:35 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Mike Galbraith Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Kevin Hilman , Tejun Heo , Lai Jiangshan , Zoran Markovic , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shaibal Dutta , Dipankar Sarma Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: move SRCU grace period work to power efficient workqueue Message-ID: <20140227144331.GA19580@localhost.localdomain> References: <1391197986-12774-1-git-send-email-zoran.markovic@linaro.org> <52F8A51F.4090909@cn.fujitsu.com> <20140210184729.GL4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140212182336.GD5496@localhost.localdomain> <1392614801.5565.92.camel@marge.simpson.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1392614801.5565.92.camel@marge.simpson.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:26:41AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > > > Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan > > > > > > Thank you all, queued for 3.15. > > > > > > We should also have some facility for moving the SRCU workqueues to > > > housekeeping/timekeeping kthreads in the NO_HZ_FULL case. Or does > > > this patch already have that effect? > > > > Kevin Hilman and me plan to try to bring a new Kconfig option that could let > > us control the unbound workqueues affinity through sysfs. > > Handing control to the user seemed like a fine thing, so I started > making a boot option to enable it. Forcing WQ_SYSFS on at sysfs > decision spot doesn't go well, init order matters :) Post init frobbing > required if you want to see/frob all unbound. I'm curious about the details. Is that because some workqueues are registered before sysfs is even initialized? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/