Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:12:12AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On 03/14/2015 07:49 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
[...] >> >> >> >> As I mentioned in an earlier discussion[1], I still think this could >> >> default too the housekeeping CPUs in the NO_HZ_FULL case: >> >> >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL >> >> cpumask_complement(wq_unbound_cpumask, tick_nohz_full_mask); >> > >> > >> > No, the default/booted wq_unbound_cpumask should be cpu_possible_mask. >> > >> >> Even for NO_HZ_FULL? >> >> IMO, for NO_HZ_FULL, we want the unbound workqueues to be on the >> housekeeping CPU(s). > > If it should be the default on NO_HZ_FULL, maybe we should do this from the > tick nohz code. Some late or fs initcall that will do the workqueue affinity, > timer affinity, etc... Sure, I'd be fine with that too. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
