Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-37711-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:47:29 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on
 unbounded queue_delayed_work
Message-ID: <ZbGFce8ixJKb6umE@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20240124082938.2527697-2-leobras@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240124082938.2527697-2-leobras@redhat.com>

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:29:37AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> +	/*
> +	 * If the work is cpu-unbound, and cpu isolation is in place, only
> +	 * schedule use timers from housekeeping cpus. In favor of avoiding
> +	 * cacheline bouncing, run the WQ in the same cpu as the timer.
> +	 */
> +	if (cpu == WORK_CPU_UNBOUND && housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_TIMER))
> +		cpu = housekeeping_any_cpu(HK_TYPE_TIMER);

Would it make more sense to use wq_unbound_cpumask?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun