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, 5 Jun 2023 09:12:19 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: add schedule_on_each_cpumask helper
Message-ID: <ZH2K0wdL3YAOUaTf@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230530145234.968927611@redhat.com>
 <20230530145335.930262644@redhat.com>
 <ZHnI93EMp+Aq8UAA@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <ZHohHHvtDjIJHA+a@tpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZHohHHvtDjIJHA+a@tpad>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 02-06-23 14:04:28, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 12:48:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&effmask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> > > +		free_percpu(works);
> > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	cpumask_and(effmask, cpumask, cpu_online_mask);
> > > +
> > > +	cpus_read_lock();
> > > +
> > > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, effmask) {
> > 
> > Is the cpu_online_mask dance really necessary? 
> 
> > Why cannot you simply do for_each_online_cpu here? 
> 
> Are you suggesting to do: 
> 
> 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> 		if cpu is not in cpumask
> 			continue;
> 		...
> 	}
> 
> This does not seem efficient.

Are you sure this is less sufficient than a memory allocation?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs