Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:00:22 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, avagin@gmail.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, sramana@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: fix circular locking dependency
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180102174408.GM7829@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180102180119.GA1355@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180108122823.GL3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180108225238.GN9671@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180109003127.GA30224@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180109034211.GC3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180109042016.GR9671@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180109134448.GE3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180109152112.GT9671@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180109153752.GI3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180109153752.GI3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180109160022.GW9671@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:37:52AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Paul.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:21:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The code was previously using both system_power_efficient_wq and
> > > system_workqueue (for the expedited path).  I guess the options were
> > > either using two workqueues or dropping POWER_EFFICIENT.  I have no
> > > idea how big an impact this will make or whether it'd even be
> > > noticeable but maybe it'd be worthwhile to mention that in the
> > > description?
> > 
> > Good point!  How about if I change the last paragraph of the commit
> > log to read as follows?
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > This commit also causes SRCU to use this new RCU-specific
> > workqueue_struct.  Note that SRCU's use of workqueues never blocks them
> > waiting for readers, so this should be safe from a forward-progress
> > viewpoint.  Note that this moves SRCU from system_power_efficient_wq
> > to a normal workqueue.  In the unlikely event that this results in 
> > measurable degradation, a separate power-efficient workqueue will be
> > creates for SRCU.
> 
> Sounds good.  Please feel free to add
> 
>  Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

Done, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul