Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:27:20 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: avoiding unbounded wq on isolated CPUs by
 default
Message-ID: <20150717152720.GD15934@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <9e53de7c91c885ee255e16ee25f401d9eedf08d9.1437067317.git.bristot@redhat.com>
 <20150716192448.GY15934@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <1437107190.3438.23.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1437107190.3438.23.camel@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1043
Lines: 27

Hello, Mike.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 06:26:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hm, I thought the plan was that after the Lai's unbound series landed,
> his ordered wq patch would follow, but perhaps not.

Yes, that still is the plan but this is kinda unrelated to that
change.  This just initializes wq cpumask according to cpu isolation.
I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do
this before (ISTR people discussing it back then too).

> I'm referring to the somewhat aged patch below. (freshly wedged into
> master, and maybe not properly, but it should at least look familiar).

Yeah, I think I asked Lai to try a different approach where we
regulate it from queueing path rather than playing with pwqs.  I think
that'd end up quite a bit simpler.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/