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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230613092819.GA18487@didi-ThinkCentre-M930t-N000>
 <20230614091923.GA1059@didi-ThinkCentre-M930t-N000> <ZJNizvI-7A2hFDoM@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZJNizvI-7A2hFDoM@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Yuanhan Zhang <zyhtheonly@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 11:47:06 +0800
Message-ID: <CAEQmJ=jW7O=EVQC7UxGSX+YDK8aTTcF3gje5HgwuTY9cnE0C2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/isolation: add a workqueue parameter to
 constrain unbound CPUs
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.co,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        fuyuanli@didiglobal.com, zwp10758@gmail.com, zyhtheonly@yeah.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> =E4=BA=8E2023=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=8822=E6=97=A5=E5=91=
=A8=E5=9B=9B 04:51=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 05:19:45PM +0800, tiozhang wrote:
> ...
> > @@ -181,8 +181,8 @@ static int __init housekeeping_nohz_full_setup(char=
 *str)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long flags;
> >
> > -     flags =3D HK_FLAG_TICK | HK_FLAG_WQ | HK_FLAG_TIMER | HK_FLAG_RCU=
 |
> > -             HK_FLAG_MISC | HK_FLAG_KTHREAD;
> > +     flags =3D HK_FLAG_TICK | HK_FLAG_TIMER | HK_FLAG_RCU | HK_FLAG_MI=
SC
> > +             | HK_FLAG_KTHREAD;
>
> Why is WQ being taken out of nohz_full setup? The patch description doesn=
't
> mention anything.

To prevent nohz_full from rewriting workqueue's choice. Add a
description in patch v3.

>
> > @@ -208,6 +208,12 @@ static int __init housekeeping_isolcpus_setup(char=
 *str)
> >                       continue;
> >               }
> >
> > +             if (!strncmp(str, "workqueue,", 10)) {
> > +                     str +=3D 10;
> > +                     flags |=3D HK_FLAG_WQ;
> > +                     continue;
> > +             }
>
> I wonder whether it'd be better to just add a workqueue boot param but if

I also write a patch this way, please see '[PATCH] workqueue: add
cmdline parameter
`unbound_workqueue_cpus` to further constrain wq_unbound_cpumask at boot ti=
me'.
If you think it is better I'm happy to continue on this :)

> this works it's fine too.

It works since we use this cpumask to constrain wq_unbound_cpumask in
workqueue's early init.

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun

Thank you,
tiozhang