On 12/13/2014 01:27 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 06:19:54PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >> We fixed the major cases when the numa mapping is changed. >> >> We still have the assumption that when the node<->cpu mapping is changed >> the original node is offline, and the current code of memory-hutplug also >> prove this. >> >> This assumption might be changed in future and the orig_node is still online >> in some cases. And in these cases, the cpumask of the pwqs of the orig_node >> still contains the onlining CPU which is a CPU of another node, and the >> worker >> may run on the onlining CPU (aka run on the wrong node). >> >> So we drop this assumption and make the code calls wq_update_unbound_numa() >> to update the affinity in this case. > > This is seriously obfuscating. I really don't think meddling with > existing pools is a good idea.
> The foundation those pools were standing are gone. This statement is not true unless we write some code to force them, dequeue them from the unbound_pool_hash, for example. > Drain and discard the pools. Please don't try to > retro-fit it to new foundations. > > Thanks. > -- 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/