In this code:
if ((worker->flags & WORKER_UNBOUND) && need_more_worker(pool))
wake_up_worker(pool);
the first test is unneeded. Even the first test is removed, it doesn't affect
the wake-up logic when WORKER_UNBOUND. And it will not introduce any useless
wake-up when !WORKER_UNBOUND since the nr_running >= 1 except only one case.
It will introduce useless/redundant wake-up when cpu_intensive, but this
case is rare and next patch will also remove this redundant wake-up.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <la...@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 7 ++-----
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index f8d54c1..6d11b9a 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -2047,11 +2047,8 @@ __acquires(&pool->lock)
if (unlikely(cpu_intensive))
worker_set_flags(worker, WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE, true);
- /*
- * Unbound pool isn't concurrency managed and work items should be
- * executed ASAP. Wake up another worker if necessary.
- */
- if ((worker->flags & WORKER_UNBOUND) && need_more_worker(pool))
+ /* Wake up another worker if necessary. */
+ if (need_more_worker(pool))
wake_up_worker(pool);
/*
--
1.7.4.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
