Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:28:45 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Dharmendra Singh <dsingh@ddn.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fuse uring / wake_up on the same core
Message-ID: <20230327102845.GB7701@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <d0ed1dbd-1b7e-bf98-65c0-7f61dd1a3228@ddn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d0ed1dbd-1b7e-bf98-65c0-7f61dd1a3228@ddn.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 07:50:12PM +0000, Bernd Schubert wrote:

> With the fuse-uring patches that part is basically solved - the waitq 
> that that thread is about is not used anymore. But as per above, 
> remaining is the waitq of the incoming workq (not mentioned in the 
> thread above). As I wrote, I have tried
> __wake_up_sync((x), TASK_NORMAL), but it does not make a difference for 
> me - similar to Miklos' testing before. I have also tried struct 
> completion / swait - does not make a difference either.
> I can see task_struct has wake_cpu, but there doesn't seem to be a good 
> interface to set it.
> 
> Any ideas?

Does the stuff from:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230308073201.3102738-1-avagin@google.com

work for you?