Hello, Lai.
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:17:16AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > But can we please just addd wake_up_worker() in the
> > for_each_std_worker_pool() loop?
>
> wake_up_worker() needed be put on the same loop which do set %WORKER_UNBOUND.
>
> mutex_lock(&pool->assoc_mutex);
> do set
On 03/05/2013 03:20 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Lai.
>
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 11:55:29PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> After we introduce multiple pools for cpu pools, a part of the comments
>> in wq_unbind_fn() becomes wrong.
>>
>> It said that "current worker would trigger unbound chain ex
Hello, Lai.
On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 11:55:29PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> After we introduce multiple pools for cpu pools, a part of the comments
> in wq_unbind_fn() becomes wrong.
>
> It said that "current worker would trigger unbound chain execution".
> It is wrong. current worker only belon
After we introduce multiple pools for cpu pools, a part of the comments
in wq_unbind_fn() becomes wrong.
It said that "current worker would trigger unbound chain execution".
It is wrong. current worker only belongs to one of the multiple pools.
If wq_unbind_fn() does unbind the normal_pri pool(no
4 matches
Mail list logo
