On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:27:20AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 06:26:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Hm, I thought the plan was that after the Lai's unbound series landed, > > his ordered wq patch would follow, but perhaps not. > > Yes, that still is the plan but this is kinda unrelated to that > change. This just initializes wq cpumask according to cpu isolation. > I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do > this before (ISTR people discussing it back then too).
Initializing wq unbound cpumask to housekeeping_mask is still the plan. I just remember we didn't do it in Lai's series because it was slightly unrelated. When a patchset is complicated, like Lai's, it's better to keep it focus to a single purpose. Anyway that patch is welcome. > > > I'm referring to the somewhat aged patch below. (freshly wedged into > > master, and maybe not properly, but it should at least look familiar). > > Yeah, I think I asked Lai to try a different approach where we > regulate it from queueing path rather than playing with pwqs. I think > that'd end up quite a bit simpler. Ordered workqueues aren't handled currently? I tried setting the unbound cpumask and it also applied to khelper which is a singlethread (and thus ordered) workqueue. > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- 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/
